Hello Polkadot community, Technical Fellowship, and OpenGov voters,
This is a proposal draft, not a personal claim.
I previously opened a Governance thread titled “Advice requested: recovery path for DOT backing stranded xcDOT after Moonbeam shutdown”.
Related on-chain context:
Why this is stuck
Moonbeam entered maintenance mode on 1 August 2026. User transactions, EVM, and XCM stopped. xcDOT is only a wrapped representation. The backing is native DOT.
Moonbeam helpdesk has already told at least some holders that it cannot assist with an individual xcDOT migration. The GLMR/MOVR late-claim window is a separate process and does not cover xcDOT.
bkchr’s point still stands: this should be one proposal for all holders, with a list that anyone can verify. It should not be a series of one-off refunds.
What is already public
- Terminal xcDOT supply: about 233,451.67
- Public snapshot: 11,785 non-zero addresses, about 233,450.68 xcDOT, with Substrate state proofs against Moonbeam’s terminal state root
- Snapshot and tools: GitHub - libingjiang47/xcdot-recovery-kit · GitHub
On 5 August 2026, Moonbeam referendum 161 moved the DOT (and the USDC/USDT backing xcUSDC/xcUSDT) out of the Asset Hub sovereign account to the ordinary account:
12gMyzugTFJTY1nqeqCcfoPC6R3YeozbRZNhRmPMW5Kmjvn1
So this is no longer a simple “unlock the sovereign account” problem. A recovery path still needs a network position.
This RFC is limited to xcDOT / native DOT. Other xc-assets can follow the same method later if the community wants that, but mixing every case into one vote will stall this again.
What I am asking OpenGov to signal
Please support a Wish For Change referendum (system.remark) with this order of preference:
A. Moonbeam Foundation / the controller of the remaining backing distributes remaining DOT to holders against the public snapshot.
For ordinary EOA holders, Asset Hub fallback accounts are already defined (Moonbeam 20-byte address + twelve 0xEE bytes, SS58 prefix 0). Distribution can be batched transfers. No keys need to be collected in a helpdesk email.
B. If A does not happen, remaining backing is returned to the sovereign account or to an account Polkadot governance controls, and then distributed against the same snapshot.
C. Only if A and B do not happen, consider further OpenGov action.
Contracts, DeFi pools, and smart accounts should be a second phase. EOA free balances can be handled first.
I am an affected EOA holder. I am not asking OpenGov to process my wallet alone, and I will not post a destination address or keys here.
Proposed remark text
If this RFC looks acceptable, the on-chain remark can be:
“OpenGov signals that native DOT backing stranded Moonbeam xcDOT should be returned to holders using a publicly verifiable terminal snapshot. Preference: (A) the current custodian distributes remaining DOT to holders’ Asset Hub fallback accounts; (B) remaining funds are moved to an account controlled by Polkadot governance for the same distribution; (C) further OpenGov action only if A and B do not occur. EOA holders first; contracts and protocol positions in a later phase. This is not the GLMR/MOVR Base migration.”
What is needed next
- Review of the snapshot, proofs, and EOA vs contract split.
- Agreement on the remark text.
- A sponsor for the Wish For Change decision deposit (20,000 DOT).
- Submission on the Wish For Change track only. Not Root.
I can help coordinate holders and keep this thread to one proposal. Please comment if the remark should be narrower, if the snapshot needs a specific correction, or if someone can sponsor the decision deposit.
Thank you.