We think that we need to help our best costumers when they need help. However, we do not favor such an intervention within the economic model of Coretime auctions. We also do not think the buyer is a scammer because he/she was doing what the system allowed him/her to do. We hope that this issue doesn't happen again and that the UX experience for coretime renewal is improved.

I personally do not feel in favor of such an intervention within the economic model of Coretime auctions. The low price of the core in Polkadot is symptomatic of a larger problem that affects the demand for the token and, therefore, its tokenomics How is it possible that Mythical, one of the largest parachains we have today within Polkadot, could not have anticipated with a better price the action that the "scammer" made within the auction? I do not consider it positive that, given the low prices being paid for the core in the auctions, we decide as an ecosystem to intervene in the economic process of this model to generate new slots. I am concerned that this is a short-term solution that, in the long term, could consolidate the perception of a devalued core, which does not favor the health of the Polkadot ecosystem.

Not a good precedent, but this should be fixed as a stopgap. Hopefully the issue gets resolved.

Mistakes happen, too often in my opinion, but that’s another discussion. Let’s fix this one and move on. There are multiple factors at play, and no single party is solely to blame. The more I dig in, the clearer it becomes that several breakdowns led to this.

Let's fix it now. Auto-renewal option seems as a necessity for the future.

I switched myself to abstain after thinking that the coretime buyers should not be treated as scammers and this proposal looks not fair to them.

Thoughts in the discussion section.

Hopefully this brings attention to this issue. I believe given coretime can be permissionlessly renewed, there could be an offchain solution today that ensures that this doesn't happen again, without needing to wait for a protocol update. It also signals the lack of (and potential for) an "enterprise support" offering that could monitor and ensure these types of issues don't happen, especially for critical customers. Similar issues with "blockchain usability" on Polkadot have happened in the past (and continue to be issues), e.g. forgetting to claim stablecoin treasury spends and having them expire, as well as sending Asset Hub-destined treasury funds to a pure proxy address that only exists on the relay chain. It seems these UX issues are not on anyone's priority list, which seems to be an underlying issue. Additionally, chains on Kusama are encountering this issue as we speak. They should also be taken care of also.

Can't set this as a precedent by any means, but it is VITAL to the success of Polkadot that we step in as a community.