Non of these points are valid.

Joshua_Pritikin: Joshua_Pritikin: This is crypto, all the information as to how the liquidations took place is available on-chain in the form of smart-contract code, due to this, you had the opportunity to be fully informed as to how it works, the fact that you were not is your mistake, not ours.

Maker is not an “experimental crypto project” targeting programmers, its trying to get mainstream adoption.

Joshua_Pritikin: Joshua_Pritikin: The keeper bot code is open-source, as is the contract code. You were able to learn how to run a keeper in order to liquidate your own vault at a favourable rate. The fact that you didn’t is your mistake, not ours.

Maker was not expecting users to run keeper bots, no where on any page is it explained when taking out a cdp. If you were expecting why its it mentioned on Oasis when taking out a cdp?

Joshua_Pritikin: Joshua_Pritikin: You were liquidated, and directly caused the Maker Protocol to lose money because you failed to keep a safe-enough collateralization ratio. This is intrinsically negative (hence why there is a liquidation penalty). When you opened a Vault you ‘agreed’ to keep it collateralized. You broke that agreement, so why should we compensate you?

My ratio was always in green or orange. I did agree to keep it collateralised and maker agreed to take my eth plus 13% to pay back my loan not all my eth.

Joshua_Pritikin: Joshua_Pritikin: It’s your responsibility to understand the tools you use, the fact that you did not understand that 13% was the penalty after liquidation (which can return less than 150%) is your mistake, not ours.

No one is complaining about the 13%.

Compensating vault holders that liquidated at 0 bid?! In the case of high network utilisation, users just need to set a higher gas price to get transactions through promptly, the responsibility for knowing how to use ethereum during times of high network congestion is also on you.

No one is complaining about this.

Compensating vault holders that liquidated at 0 bid?! By compensating Vault users now, we set a precedent where we will compensate vault users in the future, this could undermine the game theoretical mechanisms underpinning the protocol.

Yes, it will force Maker not to make such mistakes in the future and take some responsibility in the way you market your products going forward.

Again, as i said before the question should be how to compensate not if. Non of these points are valid or fair.