Draft : Proposal to help fundraiser participants who lost their seed phrase

my donated info

Eth address - 0xFF3fA81A59F31bd563D2554401438a1678D43593
TXID - 0xe2bb8c832c237b9ed898d4616649347e84931d56b8942cb409cafd6b01e1913d

@gamarin is right!

While we sympathize with those with lost seed phrases, we found the economic finality concerns outlined above to be compelling.

1 Like

At first thought I was very much in favor of this proposal. It is terrible that there are people who have lost their fundraiser ATOMs.

On reflection, I have to come down against this, on fairly simple principles.

  1. Economic finality of the blockchain.
  2. Validators should not be in the business of making subjective judgements. We are not adjudicators. We are not in the business of KYCing random ATOM holders.
  3. The precedent setting of validators working together to approve rectification of perceived wrongs. There will eventually be a significant theft of ATOMs, either from an individual or an exchange. What will be asked of validators?

Cosmos is not EOS.

1 Like

I’m not sure I understand the economic finality argument.

economic finality is just a set of social norms.

I think the norm of the “genesis state” was only fully baked until after some block upgrade would be perfectly acceptable by the economy.

I don’t think responding to a theft is a reasonable thing to respect. It would simply be too difficult to coordinate the validators to do that without introducing a central authority.

Hi Matt ,
Thank you and Figment for taking the time deliberate on the draft proposal.
Some notes based on you comments.

  1. When the next upgrade occurs with the chain-id change , the new genesis block will contain new addresses based on proof that was provided by the fundraiser participants . There will be no change in the blockchain between the blocks . So one could say that economic finality of the next chain will be maintained.

  2. We could say that there will be no subjective decisions. There would be only 2 cases.Keys lost of addresses before the genesis block are different from keys lost of addresses that were funded after Gen0 block . In other words the former cannot be a precedent to the latter .

  3. Validators may not need to perform a KYC in this case . The ICF or another third party may be requested to do it and the cost of the operation can be covered from the 20% donation from the recovered funds.
    This will act as a big deterrent to what Gamarin suggests may happen.

Cosmos is definitely not EOS . The EOS situation unfortunately had a much more complicated form of recovery from what I understand and that is why Block Producers were hesitant to go through with it . However , the upgrade mechanism that CosmosHub has makes it very simple to code this recovery in.

I would like to implore Figment to please reconsider their thoughts on this proposal and will be greatly obliged if that could possible.

1 Like

Withdrawal History (Poloniex)
Txid: 1f584ea7b8da75d78dd90168c8d1a4046be88e20f75c867d567944bd17d46973
Amount : 1.5BTC