"Hit the local tyrants and divide the land"? An article reviewing the beginning and end of Juno's forced expropriation of giant whale assets

first level title

The giant whale broke the pledge promise after obtaining a huge amount of JUNO airdrops from 50 addresses

PANews first takes you through the ins and outs of the whole incident.

Previously, PANews mentioned in the introduction of Juno Network, whose market capitalization has repeatedly hit new highs, that Juno Network is a project developed and managed by the Cosmos community, so in order to achieve a fair distribution of the governance token JUNO, the specific distribution rules are as follows:

• The agreement will airdrop the token JUNO to the stakers of the token ATOM (the governance token of the Cosmos Hub) in a 1:1 ratio;

• In order to reduce the degree of centralization on the chain and avoid excessive voting weight of giant whales, each airdrop account can only receive a maximum of 50,000 JUNO tokens.

However, after the token JUNO was launched on the Cosmos ecological head cross-chain DEX Osmosis, one of the addresses (juno1aeh8gqu9wr4u8ev6edlgfq03rcy6v5twfn0ja8) transferred 50,000 tokens JUNO from the other 50 addresses to this address through transfer, making it a total of 2.5 million tokens. Coin JUNO. The community believes that because the giant whale judged that JUNO could not simply restart or modify the airdrop rules after launching DEX, it transferred tokens after launching Osmosis.

The actions of this address caused concern and panic in the community, so as early as October 7, 2021, the community submitted a proposal to reduce 90% of the assets of this address (Proposal#4) to avoid the centralization of governance on the chain, and Large-scale selling pressure problems caused by the future. Later, the address clarified to the community that they are a fund that manages ATOM and JUNO for dozens of customers. The foundation pledged 2.5 million JUNO on the nodes to fully support the development of the Juno network and will not make any detrimental actions to the ecological development. things. In the end, Proposal#4 was rejected with an objection rate of about 56.4%.

With the rise of the Cosmos ecology, Juno Network has ushered in a good development, and the token JUNO is also rising all the way. The whole community is in joy, and the above-mentioned giant whales are gradually being forgotten.

Until recently, the community discovered after relevant investigation and research that the actual actions of the giant whale violated the original promise. In the past five months, the giant whale re-pledged half of the token rewards obtained by node pledges, and the other half chose to sell and exchange for other tokens (such as ATOM, OSMO).

In the first three months, the giant whale transferred about 250,000 JUNOs to three different addresses, and then transferred them to Osmosis through IBC, and traded 30,000 to 60,000 JUNOs in a single transaction, causing high slippage. points and larger price changes. Afterwards, the giant whale did not transfer JUNO to other addresses, but directly connected Osmosis to the original address through IBC for transfer and Swap. According to community statistics, the giant whale has transferred a total of about 450,000 JUNO through IBC in the past five months, worth nearly $16 million (calculated based on the current JUNO price of $35.5).

In addition, the giant whale recently canceled the pledge of about 279,000 JUNO tokens. After dumping 20,000 JUNOs, it re-pledges the remaining JUNOs to the node (the community speculates that the reason for not selling all of them may be that the address has been focus on).

The giant whale has been dumping JUNO on a large scale for the past 5 months, and has recently begun to cancel the pledged JUNO. These behaviors have aroused dissatisfaction in the community, believing that it is not conducive to the healthy development of the Juno network. contrary to. So in the early hours of March 11th, Beijing time, the Juno community launched a governance proposal Proposal#16, suggesting that the number of coins held by the giant whale be reduced to 50,000, and the voting duration is 5 days.

According to the detailed description of Proposal#16, the specific reasons for the community to propose this proposal are as follows:

• The giant whale violated the airdrop rules stipulated by the community, that is, an account can receive up to 50,000 JUNO airdrop rewards;

• The giant whale occupies about 9.6% of the voting weight, which is too centralized and poses a threat to on-chain governance;

• 9.6% of the total staking rewards of the Juno network were allocated to the giant whale, causing them to sell about 10,000 JUNO per day;

• The giant whale has recently canceled its pledge and sold it on a large scale;

• Only the JUNO pledged by this giant whale can drain the liquidity of the entire DEX;

• The cancellation of the pledge by the giant whale has aroused concern and uneasiness in the entire community, which is not conducive to the healthy development of the Juno network.

first level title

"Beat the local tyrants and divide the fields"? Community Opinion Is Now Divided

Regarding this proposal, there are "differing praises and criticisms" in the market, and there are voices of approval and opposition. The more controversial ones are:

1) Does this proposal violate the decentralization spirit of “Procedure is Justice” in the blockchain?

Agreeing party: The giant whale violated the established airdrop rules. No matter what method is used, the result is that the giant whale has obtained 2.5 million airdrop tokens JUNO in one account, so it can be punished. In addition, the final approval of the proposal is decided by the entire Juno community. The community is the absolute manager and will manage the Juno network in the way they think is most appropriate. Opposing violations is also for better governance, which is in line with decentralization. the spirit of.

Opponent: The airdrop rules of the Juno network only set an airdrop account to receive a maximum of 50,000 JUNO, but it does not prohibit a person from having multiple accounts and obtaining more airdrop rewards through the behavior of dividing positions. In addition to this discovered giant whale, there may be other giant whales with similar behaviors that have not been discovered. This result is a problem with the airdrop rules, not the giant whale. The giant whale has fully complied with the procedural rules set by the airdrop, so it is not in favor of reducing the giant whale’s assets, which violates the original intention of procedure as justice.

2) Will this proposal cause other large investors to give up participating in the construction of the Juno network?

Those in favor: This proposal will not affect the participation of other investors, because the giant whale violated the airdrop rules first, and if the giant whale owns 2.5 million JUNOs by purchasing them in the market, the community will approve this behavior.

Opposition: This proposal will affect the enthusiasm of whales to participate in the construction of the Juno network, because the community can initiate a proposal to confiscate other people’s assets at will. Although this time it is because of airdrop rules, will similar votes be initiated for other reasons in the future, resulting in What about the situation of "dividing the local tyrants and dividing the land"? As a Twitter account called JunoWhale put it: If it's not me, it may be you next.

In short, because the entire encryption industry is still in the early stages of construction and has not yet developed to a relatively mature stage, there is no absolute "right" or "wrong" for issues similar to Juno Network's proposed compulsory collection of user funds. What do you think of this proposal from the Juno community?