Hi, I'm happy to reply right away.
Please use facts when you write a blog post accusing theft. If you are unsatisfied with the response you got in your ticket, you could work with us in the ticket to resolve why we came to the conclusion we came to and then dispute it so we can figure out a solution.
Instead, you're writing this post and skipping over some pretty significant facts. Some people will now headline read this and get the wrong impression
I did and the response I got was "We can send back the bHBD if you prefer".
I offered you a ton of chances to come clean - in posts and comments. F.e.
CUBathy - do you have any bHBD or CUB?
HBD interests - CUB governance in test
The real complaint here is that you won't be able to turn around and make an instant $171 profit. Despite the fact that the UIs all state this variable fee is in place after the de-pegging event.
I'm sure you can look for more than just the TX but to see that half of the bHBD came directly from CUB swap - as it was all pooled into CUB-bHBD pool. And the $171 instant profit you mention is actually $171 a loss reduction - a loss made purposely made by you turning off the bridge, pulling HBD out of peg and staking them for your OWN profit. If you hadn't taken out HBD, you would have it.
I really like the term 'de-pegging event' describing an event that you forgot to tell anyone about, that was discovered when Splinterlands voted for a proposal to hold funds in HBD and they thought of using your bridge. Here you have 
The facts are:
- you promised a stablecoin pegged to HBD at 1:1 ratio
- you crippled it,
- you took all the HBD out of "contract",
- you earned interests out of it - you can check it in
reports all written down,
- and now you try to not honour the service you provided - wleo.io site told you will deduct 9% fee at the time.
This is what I got for trusting you. How this is different from what Sam Bankman-Fried did?
RE: Leofinance's daylight robbery [a call to action]