What about the proposal to confiscate the Tokens of major households that “private property is inviolable”?

A big thing happened recently.

Maybe many old irons haven’t heard much about this matter, or they haven’t paid much attention to it, because it really has nothing to do with their own interests. However, this matter has an extremely significant impact on the entire blockchain circle, decentralization, and governance. In other words, it is more appropriate to describe it as “long-term and profound”.

The last one that can be described with these words is the most famous “DAO” event in the history of the 16-year circle, which directly led to the split of Ethereum into ETH and ETC.

What happened this time?

That is the 16 proposal of Juno Network, the Cosmos ecological smart contract platform chain . I think that future blockchain history books may name this event as “Event No. 16”, or “Juno Whale Event”.


The reason is this, long story short.

Juno’s airdrop rules at the beginning of last year were: ATOM stakers received Juno token airdrops at a 1:1 ratio. In order to avoid the problem of centralized governance rights caused by giant whales and big players, it is stipulated that each address can only receive 50,000 Juno tokens.

Then a giant whale divided the Atom in his hand into 50 accounts, each account got 50,000 Juno, and finally aggregated to one address, so he had 2.5 million Juno, these tokens are kept today About $100 million.

The community discovered this as early as October last year, and felt that it was too scary to have so many tokens in the hands of such a giant whale. This is the sword of Damocles hanging over his head! So I made a proposal No. 4, and I wanted to cut the coins of this big family by 90%.

At this time, the big family saw that the situation was not good, and quickly jumped out to clarify to the community, “I am not alone! We are a fund that manages ATOM and JUNO for dozens of customers, and we promise not to smash the market! All our tokens are pledged and supported. Juno Ecology”, once he made a statement, everyone believed his evil, and the proposal was rejected by more than half of the negative votes. In the following months, the prices of ATOM and Juno have also been rising, and everyone has made a lot of money. No one talks about it anymore.

Then the community suddenly found out that this big household is a big cheat. He pledged half of the tokens, and the other half was sold for ATOM, Osmosis, etc. There has been a sell-off in the past few months , and the pledge has been gradually cancelled recently. , are you trying to smash the plate?

So there is such a proposal that is destined to be recorded in the history of the blockchain. The Juno 16 proposal reduces the number of Juno tokens of this giant whale address to 50,000. The voting duration is 5 days. On March 16, it was 40.85 % support, 33.8% disapprove, 21.8% abstain from voting.


This proposal is only five days from start to finish.

But some of these figures and episodes deserve our attention:

By the third day of voting, more than 50,000 voters had participated in Proposal 16, and the turnout rate had approached 85%. By the end of the fifth day, the turnout rate had reached 98.45%, a record high for the community’s participation in governance voting. , and if the number of participants and the voting rate are taken into account, I believe that all project voting in the history of the blockchain is definitely the top level.

Looking at the episode again, in addition to the community, various people on Twitter, and KOLs expressing their opinions, the Juno development team actually stood up this time and expressed their attitude towards this incident.

Basically the following points:

  1. Regardless of the outcome, right or wrong, this incident is a wake-up call worth sounding;
  2. The result of the vote does not mean that it will be enforced immediately, and the community can change their mind at any time (on March 15th, the Juno Network development team Core1 tweeted to repeal the proposal);
  3. Our current governance tools are relatively primitive and need better governance systems and solutions;
  4. In the future Juno constitution, there should be some unquestionable basic principles – such as the sanctity of the personal wallet (private property).


In this incident, there are many positives, and the reason for the positive is simple. The butt decides the head, and if the number of tokens of the giant whale is reduced, the selling pressure will be greatly reduced. The natural value of the tokens in your hands will be higher. It seems to have a sense of sight of “beating the local tyrants and dividing the land”.

And Zhengfang is not “playing local tyrants” for no reason. In their eyes, the short-selling rule clearly stipulates that an address can only get 50,000 Juno. “The fault comes first” , and he violated his commitment to the community last year and pledged all to support the Juno ecosystem, so this matter is the responsibility of the square!

The reason for the negative side is also very simple: what happened to other people’s sub-accounts? There is no express provision in the airdrop rules that separate accounts are not allowed! What the law does not prohibit can be done, even if it is to take advantage of the loopholes, it must be recognized.

More importantly, what is the spirit of blockchain? One of the most well-known words in the early days of Bitcoin is that Li Xiao said, ” Bitcoin is the first time in human history that the sacred and inviolable private property has been realized by technical means . “

What is the meaning behind this sentence? That is “the private key is everything, and if you master the private key, you will master the property “.

Now that you have put together such a proposal, you have completely shaken the foundation of the “sanctity of private property” in this blockchain world. The so-called decentralized governance cannot simply and rudely obey the majority, allowing the majority to plunder the minority. Property, you are clearly mob politics .


From the neutral point of view, this may be a classic trolley problem.

What about the proposal to confiscate the Tokens of major households that "private property is inviolable"?

On the moral level, the giant whale did get such a large amount of wealth through the loopholes in the rules, and later violated the original verbal promise, cancelled the pledge and smashed the market.

In terms of interests, the confiscation of the giant whale’s property is beneficial to everyone and the system in the ecology, at least in the short term, except for the giant whale himself.

But at the level of procedural justice, it is really in line with the ideal “procedural justice” if the giant whales continue to sell every day. Besides, if you deal with the giant whales that have 50 accounts, those who have 10 accounts, 5 account, or only two or three accounts? If you want to check, there must be some. They also took advantage of the loopholes, but they are not as conspicuous as this giant whale, so they just “snatch the first bird?”.

Moreover, what if the giant whale is really just a fund that “manages ATOM and JUNO for dozens of clients” as he said? Then this money belongs to many customers, and he just helps them divide their positions. If you confiscate it, even the so-called moral justice is untenable.

So the neutral side is also very tangled.


Should one sacrifice one person to serve “maximizing the happiness of the most people”? The most deadly thing is that there is such a precedent in history! That is the fork event of the DAO.

According to Code is Law, the hacker was nothing more than exploiting the loopholes in the contract to steal funds “reasonably and legally”. On the contrary, the fork and rollback plan of V God and the community seems to be less in line with “procedural justice”.

Since there is a DAO first, why can’t we “kill the giant whale that exploits loopholes and serve everyone who holds the currency” this time?

The reason why the trolley problem is called a “difficulty”, and as one of the most well-known thought experiments in the field of ethics , is of course not solvable by a simple black-and-white answer or point of view. This is also an important consideration for the “decentralization” and “governance” of the blockchain brought by this event.

Where are you standing this time?

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/what-about-the-proposal-to-confiscate-the-tokens-of-major-households-that-private-property-is-inviolable/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.

Like (0)
Donate Buy me a coffee Buy me a coffee
Previous 2022-03-23 09:55
Next 2022-03-23 09:57

Related articles