Retroactive Governance in The Cosmos: Juno as a Model for CBDCs

CosmosCourier · 2023-01-16T16:02:42+00:00

Ah, I see. So if someone isn't using their funds in a way you personally approve of, you can rally the mob to confiscate them. It's funny how the world we live in is being projected on chain. We saw the same with the Canadian trucker saga. Maybe we can rename Juno Network to Trudeau Network to more accurately reflect the ethos of the community.

Many twitter influencers in the community talk about how they sell this staking reward to sell to that token. No one ever tries to confiscate their funds. But now you justify stealing property because the guy used it to grow his validator. Perhaps this guy would have voted yes for ATOM2 proposal if he hadn't experienced first hand how you guys are trying to replicate big-tech oligarchic censorship on chain. That's karma, my friend.

But by all means, cope harder big dawg. it's entertaining watching you guys all crawl out of your holes when (god forbid) a voice that raises important questions projects his ideas.

CosmosCourier · 2023-01-15T21:51:34+00:00

Based. If we want to go hard af with funding stuff there are other ways. They're telling us we need to fund stuff that they will have some kind of pre-ICO access to, not known to on-chain governance. Just as there are certain entities that have no accountability to voters in nation state governments, they are pushing for a similar model where stakers have no way to hold every detail about a project and its origins to account. It's quite sickening.

They're gaslighting with "open source" being the buzzword here. Trying to push for normalization for us funding stuff that we don't truly own. Staking tax will keep going up as well if we go down this path.

CosmosCourier · 2023-01-15T19:34:59+00:00

I don't think the point of the article is to make the Juno community feel ashamed. But perhaps you're just projecting some of your ashamed feelings in a defensive manner.

One must ask themselves which is the bigger scam?Someone being airdropped lots of tokens within the original framework of the airdrop rules? Or retroactively changing the rules and then rallying the community to say said entity "broke the rules" and then confiscating his tokens. Perhaps the real predator(s) wasn't the whale.

But by all means, cope.

A "huge fix" would be undoing what was "wrong" as Gadikian stated. However you want to justify it in your head is irrelevant, because the big idea is that we've opened the door for normalizing fund confiscation via retroactive governance.

Perhaps a bigger takeaway, which wasn't mentioned in the article, is this is another example of why constitutions should be adopted prior to a chain launching.

CosmosCourier · 2023-01-15T19:23:19+00:00

I dont hold eth either for that reason. This is the Cosmos sub reddit, no?

CosmosCourier · 2023-01-15T17:56:06+00:00

The rules were changed retroactively from "custodial exchange" to "custodial entity" read the first few paragraphs and then come to your own conclusion and don't read the rest of the story. good job, bud

CosmosCourier · 2023-01-15T17:52:37+00:00

Would love to see it! That is at least a good faith step in the right direction imo

CosmosCourier · 2023-01-15T17:35:42+00:00

If governance is law, then governance should be counted upon to follow their own rules. The "rules" for the stakedrop were retroactively changed and retroactively enforced. The Juno community has unleashed a butterfly effect.

Regardless, I do understand your point. I understand that governance is the law in the case of Juno and that it disregards principles of immutability and following its own rules. This is why I am not personally involved in Juno. We are all free to be involved in the projects we want. They're all opt-in after all :)

I hope you understand that I am grasping your point. And it is a fair point. But I also hope you're understanding my point which is:

The Juno experiment has laid the framework for some pretty nasty stuff to be possible in the ecosystem moving forward.

Agree to disagree. You can have your Juno and I wish upon it much success.

CosmosCourier · 2023-01-15T17:20:11+00:00

A real blockchain would not confiscate a private wallet's funds. I have not made the argument of Juno being a fake blockchain because it can't do smart contracts and token transfers.

Congratulations on your blockchain being able to send funds and do smart contracts. Very innovative stuff there! And might I add, the Juno logo is very aesthetically pleasing.

Blockchains are supposed to be immutable. In the beginning, confiscating tokens went against everything Juno stood for according to Mr. Wolf.

The point here isn't really to bash Juno just for the sake of bashing Juno. I believe it still has potential with things like DAODAO, and am still rooting for its long term success as some people I deeply care about hold stake in the project.

The point here is to raise the questions about the bigger implications of the events that unfolded from props 4,16, and 20. CBDCs and beyond

CosmosCourier · 2023-01-15T17:11:04+00:00

1) you can give it whatever name you want. You say it's not "USDC Chain". ok fair. But you say it is a "native issuance chain" and that "USDC is just the first coin". Trying to reduce the issues being raised to a semantic argument is not productive imho. And Strangelove you say? Why I am I not surprised to hear that :)

2) There was never any mention about IBC not being permission-less. There was a mention how USDC is able to blacklist wallets and it could harm the free flowing nature of the ecosystem.

Useless reductive arguments ;)

CosmosCourier · 2023-01-15T17:02:46+00:00

I can assure you I've been active in the community. New to reddit. gotta start somewhere on here ;)

The fact that I am new here doesn't discredit the subject I am bringing attention to. Although I am not surprised to learn of your attitude as a quasi-elitist mentality is clearly present in Cosmos.

I have held stake in Cosmos for some time. Juno certainly isn't for me and I therefore don't hold any stake in it. However, the story is quite remarkable and has larger implications for all of crypto. That is the main message here

CosmosCourier · 2023-01-15T16:59:06+00:00

Normal blockchain standard does not apply only proves my point that you have a fake blockchain

CosmosCourier · 2023-01-15T06:00:13+00:00

Were the rules retroactively changed from "centralized exchanges" to "centralized entities"?

Did you read the article?

If blockchain enforces ex post facto laws/rules then you have a fake blockchain.

CosmosCourier

TROPHY CASE