Is there a litigation procedure?

The users of Acala are clearly very unhappy with the team. They’ve been banning people on their forums that offered alternative solutions, which required Acala to pay the costs of their error print, and refused to share the state of their financials. If we knew the status of the build Acala funds, over the past year we could have litterally used other Defi protocols to repeg ausd. I have a feeling a portion of those funds were embezzled shortly after build Acala.

They’re also footing the bill of the error print upon their users with the Acala Exodus plan. The staking solution proposed covers network shortfall events, and since they’re refusing to share their financials my first assumption is they’re planning on using the staked funds to bail themselves out, while misleading users.

Now, they have a ton of Dot somewhere for their next lease, and my thinking is couldn’t we just have a motion that takes their Dot, and gives it to their users in proportion to their Acala holdings? It should not be too hard to identify Acala team accounts, and have more capital efficient lawsuits on Dot.

Is it possible for a vote on Polkadot to have assets change hands on Acala, as well? If that’s not possible. Maybe we can decentralize Acala a bit more by requiring them to run another crowdloan with Acala as the reward.

This might seem a bit harsh; but, in reality it’s a win win situation. The more decentralized Acala is the higher the price, and the greater the trust in the protocol. Price should appreciate if the team can’t just vote to take the money of users, and outside developers can enforce testing. (the error print should have been easy to catch with a unit test) Polkadot would benefit from having a trustworthy stablecoin in the process.

Acala is welcome to defend themselves by presenting evidence of funds not being misappropriated, while their users argue their case. The evidence could be presented on the forums or a separate pallet for arbitration proceedings. We could then vote on a motion for whether Acala has to pay for damages in Dot. So, is this a means of litigating Acala on chain?