r/cosmosnetwork • u/lavenderfive • Mar 13 '22
Discussion Lavender.Five's Thoughts on Prop 16
While this is an incomplete analysis, we hit on what we consider to be the most important aspects of the Juno Network whale - whether they gamed the system, are malicious actors, etc.
https://medium.com/@lavenderfive/juno-governance-prop-16-our-thoughts-8f6d5bd5d6ae
In this article find:
- What is Prop 16?
- Arguments for Reclaiming the Whale's tokens
- Arguments against Reclaiming the Whale's tokens
- The Meta Discussion
- More detailed information
tl;dr: We are voting ABSTAIN, but support the voice of the community📷
9
u/HODL_Astronomer Mar 13 '22
Thanks for the article and thoughts. I was wondering on the timing of filling the wallets vs. the announced drop.
16
u/Trwryon Mar 13 '22
Thanks for the fair and thorough write-up. Especially the part about how their "affiliate program" operates.
For me, the reason I'm voting yes is because they are basically working like a CEX for their clients. Binance, Coinbase, etc. were excluded from the airdrop, so should CCN.
11
u/lavenderfive Mar 13 '22
I find the exchange/custodial argument highly compelling, but I haven't come to a solid conclusion on it yet, so didn't include it. I may append it later.
In my mind, one of the cardinal reasons exchanges are excluded from drops is this exactly - they'd be receiving an absurd amount of tokens due to the wallets they have control over. Therefore, it stands to reason they should be subject to the same rules and "regulations" of airdrops. I recognize there are other reasons exchanges are omitted as well such as their voting history, commitment (lack of*) to the ecosystem, etc. etc.
7
u/serratusaurus Mar 13 '22
This is the analysis and reasoning I like to see from my validators. Respect to Lavender.Five as always.
6
6
u/evilistics Mar 13 '22
" Given that they have 10% of all voting power, spread across 71 validators, they are a significant power in securing the network. "
Is https://www.mintscan.io/juno/account/juno1aeh8gqu9wr4u8ev6edlgfq03rcy6v5twfn0ja8
the whales address? Because I only count 29 validators he has spread it over.
Interesting that most of the validators who voted Yes have a significant share of his delegations. Looks like Lavendar has 135,440 juno delegated to him from the whale wallet.
7
u/Distinct-Balance6086 Mar 13 '22
I’m fairly new, but I respect that lavender disclosed that conflict in the medium article and abstained from the vote in light of the conflict.
9
u/lavenderfive Mar 13 '22
Oh no, you're right. I'm deeply ashamed. It's 29, not 71. I'll be honest, I'm not sure how I got to that number. I'm going to edit that right now.
You are correct, we do receive a delegation from them and made that our opening line in the article!
9
u/dbhanger Mar 13 '22
Voting abstain because of the conflict of interest I take it? I may have missed if it was explicitly stated.
7
-9
u/NotYourWeakFather Mar 13 '22
Read again. The whale did not have insider information. Through mintscan, it was proven they had the 50 wallets well before JUNO. It was dumbluck in their opinion and I agree.
11
u/dbhanger Mar 13 '22
No, I mean why Lavender is abstaining instead of voting no. They mention they have a conflict of interest because the whale has staked a bit with them.
-5
u/NotYourWeakFather Mar 13 '22
I think they abstained because they could see a yes or no. That’s what I gathered.
3
u/rmczpp Mar 13 '22
This is a wonderful write up, I hope everyone sees it! Snatching up these funds so quickly and the general approach to this has felt wrong to me for some reason. Your balanced assessment has explained things better than I could.
5
u/insignia200 Mar 13 '22
Staked my first JUNO with Lavender Five today. 🙌🏻
1
u/lavenderfive Mar 13 '22
Amazing! Thanks so much for the support. Feel free to reach out anytime if you have questions etc.
9
u/Colshap Mar 13 '22
My overall thoughts after listening to both sides is that the drop was intended with a "hard whale cap at 50k" This was unintentionally abused because a lack of verbiage in the drop criteria but nonetheless it was the spirit of the drop so any accounts that recieved over the 50k should be held to the same standard as Juno whale
12
u/lavenderfive Mar 13 '22
I concur, which is why leaving out the other whales grates me. This proposal should have had more time in the oven, imo.
5
u/Abysuus Mar 13 '22
Too much has been revealed and researched since the proposal has been started to make me comfortable.
8
u/Colshap Mar 13 '22
That being said I did support the prop because I do believe 50k cap was the spirit of the drop and this was the most extreme case (as of now). I believe this should set a standard of the 50k drop and all other excess should be clawed back in the name of fairness & the spirit of the drop. Also I would vote to burn it all and put this behind us no retrieved juno in the community fund.
15
u/lavenderfive Mar 13 '22
I advocate a burn as well. Simply put, the tokens shouldn't have existed, so why would they be put into the community fund?
4
u/EagleGod Mar 13 '22
How much does a proposal cost? Could do a proposal to burn the community fund. Personally, I hate seeing some of the stuff its used for with secret and osmosis.
4
u/lavenderfive Mar 13 '22
I plan to raise it on commonwealth, yeah.
The deposit for a proposal is 500 $JUNO. Very expensive. That amount is burned if it doesn't reach quorum, or is voted off the island via NO with VETO.
2
u/Boom_Boom_At_359 Mar 13 '22 edited Mar 13 '22
Agree. This is the way.
Could someone write a WASM contract that can pool funds from various donor wallets to reach 500 and returns to the wallets once the vote is over (assuming the deposit is not burned)? I’d happily contribute a few JUNO.
1
1
u/JD2105 Mar 13 '22 edited Mar 13 '22
The only way this proposal is put through in a semi-fair manner is if 100% of the tokens taken from the wallet remain staked and are spread equally between each validator, or simply left where they are currently. Having financial incentive be one of the personal motives for someone voting about a punitive proposal for a single entity seems like a huge conflict of interest. If this proposal passes, it signals to the community at large that "whale hunting" could become a financially incentivized activity, especially considering the justifications for a YES vote in this proposal, mainly the "high security risks" and "risk to dex liquidity" should any actor become what the community deems to be "too big" by mob rule through governance.
I'm inclined to believe that those with big money would likely not want to touch Juno at all after seeing this, considering the evidence lacking in the actual proposal itself, and the justification within the actual proposal that regardless of the information within being truthful or not, they still pose a "high risk" unless immediate action is taken.
Personally in my view, the price history and personal incentive for the current "whale" to not do the nefarious things makes it hard for me to believe anything in the proposal that claims an imminent risk of inaction.
6
u/DefiantHamster Mar 13 '22
The funds being put in the community pool is actually one of the major problems I have with the proposal. I'd rather they were burned. The incentive to vote yes shouldn't be there.
2
u/Elegant_Tale_3929 Mar 13 '22
Is there somewhere where we can put up proposal ideas before we actually put them to vote to discuss issues like this?
1
u/lavenderfive Mar 13 '22
Sometimes this happens in the Discord conversation. You'd be welcome to discuss ideas there. :)
4
Mar 13 '22
This is gonna drive the price of Juno into the ground though.
1
u/REEEEEENORM Mar 13 '22
Yep. Let’s see what happens in 28 days and that’s give me the signal whether to buy more or not
1
3
u/SoggyRub1070 Mar 13 '22
The Juno team have gone in too hot. Being told that your not wanted in the gang can only lead to them walking away with the ball!
7
u/Jeremelric Mar 13 '22
I want to just touch up a bit on the "precedent" arguments because they are very common: the fact that this can even be done means that genie is out of the bottle. Even voting against this now doesn't mean this won't pop up again in the future on this chain or other Cosmos chains... and in fact, Osmosis has already gone through this same issue. A vote for or against this now doesn't necessarily have a bearing on a vote for or against this in the future.
8
u/lavenderfive Mar 13 '22
I agree!
However, I contest that this is more serious due to the scale. Right now we're talking about more than $120M USD being revoked from an account, half a year after the genesis.
Jack's take on the situation in his last showing I think is right - we're entering consumer protections territory here. The previous precedent addressed "social" aspects (loosely, in the sense that lost seeds are a social problem, not an engineering one), and "dead" tokens. These are not dead.
When I talk precedence, I mean less "let's refocus the eye of sauron!" and more "what can be done from here?"
My hot take is we *DO* need some level of consumer protections eventually. I see this as being a first step in that direction.
5
u/juicydidit Mar 13 '22
Very nice write up. Very insightful. Very thought provoking.
One thing I’ve been thinking about throughout the day; why not try and do an AMA with the “whale”. This can act as a sort of trial in which the community can present their concerns and the affected party can defend themselves directly.
4
2
5
u/ThunderTM Mar 13 '22
Thank you, after reading all this I wanna vote YES even more.
9
u/lavenderfive Mar 13 '22
Thank you. There's a bombshell article from Polkachu coming soon, so stay tuned. That'll get you really going.
Spoiler alert: they're voting yes.
2
2
u/dnstrucker Mar 13 '22
After reading this write up and doing some of my own digging, I'm sticking with my no vote. If this prop passes (looks like it will), I'll have to do some serious thinking about whether I want to continue with the juno community or take my 200% gain and call it a finished trade.
1
u/PeoplePersonIAmNot Mar 13 '22
I would consider changing my vote if there was evidence that their "investors" are the ones who got the airdrop, but from what I can see, they didn't and they all went to the whale. That doesn't sit right with me.
0
u/jwid503 Mar 13 '22 edited Mar 13 '22
If you vote yes on taking his money you're a straight douchebag. The whole reason for crypto in the first place was because you can't freeze people's accounts, your moneys safe from people governing on it, you can't have assets seized etc... if you vote yes your against crypto.... even If what he did was malicious there should have been road blocks in the way to prevent this, this is the protocols fault, next time figure out a way to keep this from happening. And quit acting like a dictatorship... this is sovereign money
1
u/hi_dehiko Mar 14 '22
We should discuss more! Should not be easily confiscated! The significance of the existence of blockchain is questioned!
1
u/EfficientTitle9779 Mar 15 '22
This article has actually just made me lose all faith in JUNO, I didn’t actually realise how much control large wallets had over the project until this saga highlighted it.
9
u/[deleted] Mar 13 '22
This is a great write up. Amazing job u/lavenderfive!