Juno Network Community Votes To Remove The Whale Assets
Votes results on Proposal 16 to remove a little over 3 million Juno coins from a whale account are in. Juno network community have voted to remove the assets and leave only 50,000 that was originally intended for any whale to receive as airdrops. The final vote counts are: 41.8% voted Yes, 33.7% voted No, 3.5% No with veto and 21.7% Abstain. The majority voted yes. It will require a hardfork to implement the removal of these assets, and then maybe there will be another proposal about what to do with these assets.
I don't have any Juno coins and I have no financial interest in the network. I don't know much about the network. But it did look like a network that was that wanted to build a community driven decentralized network. I am not sure how to feel about this voting outcome. On the one had decentralized governance worked as intended. Stakeholders and validators voted, and no single entity or group decided the outcome. How else would problems be resolved in a decentralized network? On the other hand I have strong conviction that in a truly decentralized network all wallets are safe from anybody confiscating them. If one wallet can be under risk of losing assets it holds, regardless how those funds were acquired, then no wallet has total security.
How would you reconcile these two notions: stake based voting in a decentralized manner and only owner has complete control of the funds in the wallet. My position is simple, no matter what wallet integrity should be guaranteed by the blockchain and the network. Without this what is the point on even using the blockchain technologies. I thought decentralization was the essential part that provided this guarantee. I couldn't even image that something like could happen in bitcoin network or hive network. However, now that it has been demonstrated that it is actually possible, why can't it be possible in bitcoin or hive networks?
Bitcoin has miners who can decide to run a new code that would remove coins from someone's wallet. On Hive witnesses can do the same. Stakeholders can vote in the witnesses that would go for such actions. I am speaking hypothetically, of course. But since in all of these scenarios people are involved and if we have a certain set of people, there is a possibility majority could decide to remove assets from someone's wallet. What makes bitcoin or hive different that such actions can't happen? One answer can be that stakeholders in bitcoin and hive have better understanding of how important it is to keep the wallet security and integrity. What if the same people are put in a very difficult position to choose between delivering "justice", or recovering stolen funds and removing funds from a wallet?
The reason I am asking more questions than giving answers is I would like to know what else besides decentralization can be done and should be done to make a network more resilient against attacks from outside and within. Even if a community decides to vote on their own network but these votes and actions result in an attack on a wallet, it is still an attack and undermines the entire concept of "code is law" and immutability of blockchain data.
Juno, while may be a new network, is not a small network. It has a decent market cap of $1.8 billion. What is also interesting is, after the vote results the price of the $Juno coin went up a little bit. I guess some investors like this outcome. Or maybe removing these assets might mean there won't be large amount of sales of Juno coins in near future.
The irony of this whole situation is that, it seems community doesn't want to have one entity too much influence in the network, yet demonstrates this entity had no influence at all. Logic suggests me that after such actions people would lose faith in the network. But perhaps, since many preferred this outcome, this will actually drive more interest in the network. I wouldn't be surprised if the price of Juno kept going up as a result of this. Crypto is strange.
I also learned that Juno network has an interesting vote option - No With Veto. This voting option means a strong No and signals that the proposal itself is harmful for the network and may result in penalties for the proposer. That is really interesting. I would think it would be utilized in situations like this. Because I believe the Yes result of this proposal can actually be harmful for the network. I wouldn't want to keep any of my assets in the network that can easily remove one's assets. Of course, chances of anybody making a proposal to remove my assets specifically are near zero. But still, I wouldn't trust such wallets.
What if it has nothing to do with wallets and blockchain technologies and better way of protecting property? It may just as well be only about money. No wonder many still hesitate to get into crypto world. Let me know your thoughts in the comments.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
This is amazing. Cosmos and Juno are good networks. You can vote about anything to do with the platform. Once you have a stake in it, you become a part owner. Hard fork can then remove the whales tokens. Surely he can split these into other accounts. But the thing I wanted to say was, it's about security on the Blockchain. But then it's not fair play to other investors so you should have a limit cap !
Thanks for the update, this is only the beginning of how some core blockchain principles, once thought to be immutable, begin to shift due to human nature.
your blogs are always with a lots of information and I found mostly it in hot topic. Nice to learn about Juno network community, this is my first time hearing about this. Hope everything happen for good.
Juno project will face more different challenges . It must be an other way to built good future with crypto inside our work. Do you think descentralized way may implies overcoming the other profit that's so large in the centralized life?
I don't understand your question. But yes, I think decentralized financial system is better than centralized one.
My take is the ability to control the narrative is on the table when it comes to crypto. Those who did not want one whale hoarding Juno were the developers of the project. In turn they try to make resolve their concerns by having a vote. All this is their way toward getting what they wanted. On the other hand it is a lose for the whale to have to give up the tokens. This could potentially spin into another chain where the whale maintains their holdings while forking away from the original Juno. A repeat of many chains like you listed where forks were done so people had a choice to what they wanted. All in all I think this is a good thing as it allows individuals to freely express what they wish to have. Whether or not this creates wealth is a different story. Forking too many times just dilutes the existing resources to the crypto space. As the crypto space continues to evolve I think there will be better projects were the narrative has to be a specific way is written to the point where not many can find loopholes to get around.
Loopholes will always be there. The question is how to deal with them when them.
Ouch, that's seriously going to hurt any confidence in that network, if you can remove funds for a just cause you can d it for an unjust cause too
It does look like what the majority wanted. So it lives on.
Thank for your update,your blog is always informative,to me I think Juno takes good step trying to limit the amount of people that can influence the coins
Wonderful piece and your frustration can be felt. A lot of happenings in the matket of let have been going agains what decentralised finance was ment for. People need to start revisiting what we did not know and are now seeinb to make defi what is was intended for
I wouldn't want this happen to HIVE blockchain. This question is always in a corner of my mind, if ever HIVE blockchain might go a chaos and we lose everything in our accounts/wallets.
I also think that this is bad for the network as it sets a precedence for this happening again in the future. It sounds like the rules of everything need to be set up and be way more clear if we don't want things like this to happen.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I guess the community can define the network. If people are happy with that, so be it. I wouldn't want to be part of it though.
Well I’m not surprised. It’s been said that the whale had been dumping.
Peradventure the whale is actually truly a fund manager and all accounts belonged to actual people, and was forked out, then this will be theft and the chain ruined for life.
I agree with you. I think wallet integrity should be sacred in a decentralized network. I don't have any assets in the Juno network but I believe this was a bad outcome for it.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
This is serious, but I thank you so much for latest information. But to me I think that Juno project will encounter difficult problem.
literal theft. this is a steem / hive situation, hoping that the sane nodes or whatever they call it fork this shit off. You do not steal from wallets, there was no gaming, and even if it would've been within the rules. As far as I understand
It does look like theft. At least it is removal of airdrops. It would look worse if these were purchased assets.
It seems like a short sighted decision to me, once compromised it will take a long time to trust their protocol again.
But again my opinion is more of a reaction since we all know there can be community dynamics involved as well.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
It would make it difficult for me to be involved in such a network. Just because of the uncertainties and risks.
Greetings! Your post is really informative, I believe he take a good steps because his trying to limit some coins influencers
Situations like this definitely highlights the nuance of what it means to hold coins in a blockchain. Looking forward I feel the whales involved in this saga will submit a request to unlock these tokens to eventually sell them, which I learnt according Juno network’s rules and ethics requires 28 days of notice.
There will probably be a fork before the account could remove the funds.
So from what I am gathering, these coins were not actually in the whales wallets yet, and were just amounts that were going to be airdropped to said whales. So it would seem they just voted to cap the airdrop, which is a completely different thing than removing coins from wallets. Unless I misunderstood the beginning two sentences.
I'm sure if those whales bought a bunch of assets to get said airdrop, they might be a bit upset, depending on how far away the airdrop was when they voted.
It is good to see that action was taken to fix that imbalance and it's a shame that some people try to take advantage like that. I like how they already thought of ways to prevent harmful actions to the system.
Any fork like this people have to decide whether to respect the fork or go their own way. If the bulk of the community goes the same way, so it goes, if not then you end up with two surviving forks, or potentially none at all if confidence is sufficiently shattered.
You can make moral arguments about what "should" or "shouldn't" be done through forks but it can never really be prevented, and is just how reality works. That's the nature of permissionless software. One can also make subjective and predictive arguments about what would be good or bad for the value of the network (which flows through to the value of any tokens on the network), but these are uncertain, and ultimately the market may not agree.
That being said many blockchain projects these days are not really permissionless, as they have some centralized "foundation" or "developer" or "company", which has more authority to make these kinds of decisions, and could be held responsible for wrongdoing. That may change the analysis in various ways, including legally.
https://hive.blog/steem/@smooth/go-fork-yourself-a-parable-of-self-love
Thank you @smooth for this explanation. Along with Alice's experiment your comment does help understanding of the blockchain forks better. Forks do serve as a conflict resolution. Even if they may remove assets from wallets on a new fork chain, they still exist in the old chain and this chain also may continue if there is enough interest to do so. Forks have consequences and it is up to the involved parties to face the consequences based on their decisions. I guess more decentralized the network is lower are the possibilities of network participants taking risky steps or forks.
I am shocked, as already told in your other post on this topic. Damned...
Yes, you did. Crypto is fun.
... and socially interesting ;)
I have Juno and was watching proposal 16 with interest.
The airdrops are a massive part of the growth of Juno and indeed the whole Cosmos ecosystem.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Sadly, this is a dictatorship by Juno which I had never witnessed in the past.
Your article was plagiarized by others in https://read.cash/@anecta/juno-network-community-votes-to-remove-the-whale-assets-33654176
Reach out to read.cash admin and downvote the user @anecta
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta