On Monday, the majority of the Compound Finance governance community voted against a proposed compensation programme for users affected by the Dai liquidations that occurred on Nov. 26.

Figures from the Chemical compound governance dashboard prove 681,290 votes against and simply 212,952 votes in favor. Also, COMP whales such as Polychain Uppercase and Dharma were against the programme, judging by their "no" votes cast.

As previously reported by Cointelegraph, some leveraged COMP farmers suffered massive liquidations amongst a temporary glitch in the oracle price feed for the Dai stablecoin coming from Coinbase on November. 26. With Dai at a 30% premium, some traders saw their positions go undercollateralized — triggering the debt liquidation procedure.

In total, Compound liquidations on Nov. 26 amounted to about $89 million, with over half of that sum due to the Dai toll glitch. In response, the project proposed a compensation plan amounting to 8% of the liquidated amount for affected wallets using a 14-day COMP price boilerplate.

If passed, the project would take paid out 55,234.95 COMP as compensation to the 121 users affected by the liquidations. This sum amounts to almost 2% of the 24-hr COMP circulating supply.

With the ii biggest losers on the day being "looper whales" — recursive COMP farmers — a flat 8% compensation plan did little to reimburse their substantial losses. Indeed, as pointed out by a poster named "Dmitry" on the proposal discussion board, the thirty% deviation in the Dai toll meant liquidations occurred at a median penalty rate of 18%.

Some forum posters too raised problems with the fact that 61% of the compensation package would go to two COMP farmers. Some community members argued that the plan rendered the losses incurred by "smaller farmers" insignificant.

Rather than raising the bounty percentage, a section of the community called for a cap on the reimbursement to the two largest wallets affected. Such a move would still keep the compensation outlay at the initial amount stipulated by the proposal while ensuring more equitable distribution.

Other reasons given for voting "no" include criticisms against the project that the proposal does nothing to accost the vulnerabilities that led to the liquidations in the first place. Decentralized finance projects go along to suffer opportunistic profiteering exploits due to smart contract bugs and centralized cost oracles.