Partnered With:

For the first time in history, the community encircled and suppressed big households

Read this article in 6 Minutes

Juno proposed to confiscate hundreds of millions of dollars in assets of "violating" giant whales. What do you think?

Original title: "Juno's new proposal intends to confiscate hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, or become the first case where a project side confiscates user assets"

Reference source: @TheJunonaut, Zombit

Original text Finishing: Hu Tao, chain catcher

In the early morning of March 11, Juno, the Cosmos smart contract platform, initiated a proposal on the governance platform, intending to upgrade the contract and delete JUNO assets from the whale player account, and send all of them to the Juno community fund pool. Only a reasonable 5 Ten thousand JUNOs.

According to Mintscan, the user account currently pledges more than 3.1 million JUNOs, which means that about 3.05 million JUNOs will be confiscated by the project party. Based on the current price of 39.6 US dollars, this asset is worth 120 million US dollars.

Previously, there have been many precedents in the encryption industry to freeze hacker assets, but most of them will be returned to the original owner or directly confiscated by the government. case.

Delphi Digital developer larry also tweeted that this is the first case where the L1 blockchain community collectively decided to confiscate personal wealth due to violation of the social contract, which may be written in the history books.

So why did the Juno community make this proposal? Why did the proposal gain so much support?

According to Twitter blogger @TheJunonaut and Zombit, Juno airdropped ATOM stakers and other ecological communities last year. More than 30 million JUNOs were distributed to ATOM stakers at a ratio of 1:1, with a single address capped at 50,000. The project community quickly discovered that an address starting with "juno1aeh" had collected 2.5 million JUNOs from 50 addresses. Obviously, this is a typical "airdrop hunter", and 50 addresses are prepared in advance to pledge ATOM to win more airdrops.

After noticing this, the project immediately launched a governance proposal, intending to reduce the number of airdrops by 90% to avoid centralization and dumping of currency holdings, but failed with a 56.4% opposition rate. The address pledged all 2.5 million JUNO tokens, and the community gradually forgot about the potential threat of this giant whale.

However, recently, some community members have discovered that this address has been sending staking rewards to external addresses for the past five months. A total of about 250,000 JUNO tokens were transferred and sold in the first three months (the price was about $15 at the time), and about 10,000 JUNO tokens were sold every day thereafter.

Currently, this giant whale address controls 9.6% of the voting rights, and can distribute 9.6% of the network-wide staking rewards every day. In addition, as long as he sells the tokens in his hands, the liquidity of JUNO tokens on the decentralized trading platform OSMOSIS will be exhausted at any time (the total liquidity is only 72 million US dollars).

Therefore, Juno developer Core-1 once again launched a governance proposal (Prop 16), intending to forcibly remove most of the giant whale's JUNO tokens and send the same amount of funds to the community treasury. Currently, the proposal is backed by a total of nearly 15 million JUNO tokens, with a support rate of over 90%. Since the giant whale’s JUNO tokens are all pledged, and it takes 28 days to unstake, there will be no major problems in execution.

“Community-driven governance cannot be overthrown. The community governs the network exactly as they see fit. It’s not immoral to oppose immoral stuff, that’s the power of decentralized governance,” said @TheJunonaut.

However, taking such a controversial step has sparked widespread discussion on Twitter. Opponents believe that the giant whale is completely in accordance with the rules of the game, and it should not be forced to expropriate the assets of others because of the flaws in the design of the airdrop rules. Supporters believe that decentralization is not anarchism, but that the community decides on affairs together. This proposal is completely in line with democracy and does not violate the spirit of decentralization.