even though the precursor for this proposal on the forum for more than a year
Nobody is obligated to read through all the discussions going on. that’s the point of the proposal deposit (spam prevention) system – a proposal need only be read by staked ATOM holders once it’s reached the deposit limit. I don’t spend too much time reading forum posts unless I need to because I’m busy developing something for Cosmos. I have addressed the proposal since this threshold has been made, but also it’s up to the creator of the proposal (it seems to be Iqlusion in this case) to get feedback from those with more context on the thing being proposed. I wasn’t notified, and this is consistent with a pattern of exclusion of me from certain member(s) at Iqlusion. I don’t mind, but my defense stands.
Clearly we need more time for proposals to get the discussion it needs, and I will address this in a new proposal. Several people push the guilt-tripping narrative with “but you didn’t pay attention to this when it was being worked on before” while simultaneously excluding me from conversations, sometimes quite intentionally, and we have discussed this internally to AIB and have relevant records proving it. At this point, I just assume that these nonsensical guilt-trips come from a common source with the intent to subvert Cosmos for whatever reason, and it explains everything quite well. It’s all fine and dandy.
- The fundraiser software w.r.t to browser clients was released into the wild without adequate QA as acknowledged by @zaki who was instrumental in helping us put it on chain and and fronted the entire deposit.
I have read accusations but no proof that this happened. The code of the website of the fundraiser which you can check for yourself, REQUIRES THE COPY/PASTING OF THE 12 WORDS BEFORE PROGRESS CAN BE MADE TO THE NEXT MODAL DIALOG. I find it difficult to believe these claims, though I’m happy to stand corrected.
I’m not sure what Zaki is referring to w.r.t. “inadequate QA”, and I’m not sure what you mean by “putting it on chain”. If there was a bug that could be found via QA, find it from the fundraiser code we have preserved and prove that what you are claiming happened, with the relevant browser versions etc. Zaki wasn’t involved in the fundraiser process so I don’t know what Zaki is talking about, yet I’m not surprised that this was said.
- This caused at least two participants to not even receive their seed phrase .
Where is the proof? I understand that people may have LOST their seed, and such a person would be motivated to claim that it was the fault of the fundraiser software. I’m open to this being true, but AFAIK it isn’t true.
Furthermore, this is besides the point. I am saying that an updated proposal would enable them to retrieve their ATOMs, but that the proposal as written is flawed. I have suggested an improvement, and you are making an indirection as if I oppose the intent behind the proposal, which I don’t.
- The other point is that this would have never been an issue if the participants were immediately given ownership through some proxy on a another chain like an erc_20 … (even if it were locked) . Unfortunately this was not done and paved the way for cases like people losing seeds even before the Genesis Block was created. Even something as simple as a KYC would have made life easier.
Or instructions that explicitly state the requirement to store seeds, in BRIGHT RED, for BTC and ETH:
In the case of point (2) , People did not get what they paid for ,plain and simple.
In the case of point(3) , People lost a key to home that was not even built yet , but will be locked out for ever . I am certain all the laws around the world would insist on returning the rightful ownership of property in either of these cases .
Prove that no seed was provided, but even so the instructions state it clearly that the seed must be stored, as did the fundraiser terms (https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/blob/master/fundraiser/Interchain%20Cosmos%20Contribution%20Terms%20-%20FINAL.pdf), as did the implementation of the UI which required confirmation of the seed before progression.
That said, again, I’m not opposed to “recovering” the ATOMs for these users, so these points are moot. Again, I have explained how this can happen in a responsible way; I am further stating that I don’t (yet) buy your argument that these ATOM holders are at fault rather than the fundraiser process, but that’s again besides the point.
- 95% of the funds being requested in this case are in cases who never saw their seed during the fundraiser …aka point(2). They also happen to be public facing personnel’s in the block-chain space and in no way will want to put their credibility at risk .
Again, would love to see this proof. I will instead assume that these users lost their seed, and we are discussing how we can include them safely without risk of theft to legitimate ATOM holders.
- We atom holders have already lost 13% value owing to average inflation.Add that to the 10% donation to the governance pool. How is that not a fair punishment for us? … and you seem to be completely happy with another year of pain and loss by the “inflation tax” as you term it ?
To any neutral observer it will look like you are more interested in decimating our stake in the ecosystem by keeping us away from our assets.
I wouldn’t even donate anything to the governance pool, but a potential fair punishment for losing 12 words would be complete loss of those ATOMs, so from what I know, I am suggesting a modification to this proposal to make it safer while being extremely generous, for the implicit contract in blockchain systems so far had been that losing your private key should result in loss of tokens. Furthermore, the 13% inflation was earned for them being put at stake, and static ATOM holders have not staked. So none of this makes any sense to me.
- We’ve worked on this proposal for 2 years with the help of many community members no thanks to you and Ethan who from the beginning had zero intention of helping us. I am very offended by you calling this proposal “poorly crafted” .
I’ll say it again, it’s poorly crafted in its fundamental basis, for it risks taking ATOMs away from their rightful owners, and I have proposed an alternative that mitigates this risk.
So not only are you responding with straw man arguments, you’re also completely ignoring my points regarding potential theft, which maybe you don’t understand, but the only other explanation I can muster is that you’re intentionally misleading people.
- This proposal is flawed as is because it allows for potential theft.
- It invents out of thin air prior social contracts regarding the fundraiser.
- It ignores real social contracts regarding the ownership of ATOMs.
- It can clearly be improved.
- It doesn’t matter that this proposal pass, because we can make an amendment to make it better.
- Your response to these points don’t address the points, but rather misdirect with straw man points, and serve the interests of Iqlusion and yourself at the expense of myself and Ethan (AIB and ICF), which is what Zaki has stated in private that he would do, and we have proof for; to help clarify the macro-incentives at work here, I now feel the obligation to disclose this to the public.
There was once a time when I was accused by Gregory Maxwell of being a “charlatan” for proposing classical BFT-based proof of stake systems as an alternative to PoW. He then kicked me out of #bitcoin-wizards. That’s not right, and I aim to be as inclusive as possible, yet I also see the need to be frank about the insecurity of changes and proposals and point it out. So far I have concluded that the best I can do is to explain in clear words how I feel. I feel that this proposal is a trap created to (a) win favors from ecosystem participants, (b) show this winning of favor in public, and © destroy the market’s faith in Cosmos as a legitimate system that can safeguard its various native and IBC pegged tokens. Should this proposal pass as written, I expect that the next event will be a revelation that in fact ATOMs were stolen from their rightful owners, from one or more of the claims in this proposal, or the next.. Furthermore, that various people will accuse me of “being crazy” or “paranoid”.
Since I’ll be accused anyways, here’s a crazy hypothesis: Some players in Silicon Valley want to subvert Cosmos, but they will fail because our original mission is self-consistent in truth and inevitable, for modularity and constructive security are inevitable.
To me, the passage of this proposal marks an important lesson – that our governance mechanism still needs evolving, and also that there will always be the potential whether through ignorance or hidden malicious intent for theft. Clearly we need more checks and balances with proposals that attempt to change ownership.
Overall I’m glad we can have these discussions, and I’m looking forward to the Cosmos Hub redeeming itself in the next 10 hours, or with a later modified proposal as I suggested, or with a hard-fork away from those who voted against the interests of the Cosmos Hub, with the intent to be much more conservative and security oriented, in alignment with what is being drafted here: https://github.com/jaekwon/cosmos_roadmap/tree/master/shape_of_cosmos.
awaiting your response to correct my thinking with (a) proof of your claims that the seeds weren’t shown which are still besides the point and (b) actual responses to my salient points, bolded above with bullet points,
- your humble servant, Jae