We declare a solid opposition to it. We hope all people can read this statement to the end.
The precedent of changing the balance without the consent of the address owner means that all property in Juno essentially belongs to the Juno community, making it clear that Juno is a communist chain. For all investors who love capitalism, the precedent of not granting ownership and sovereignty of personal property in Juno is, above all, repugnant and will significantly hinder the future development of Juno.
In the past, various communist countries throughout history began with the seizure of the assets of the wealthy by the masses. Communism eventually led to a central dictatorship.
Therefore, such a Prop that questions fundamental principles that will significantly affect the future of Juno needs to be discussed more carefully. In reality, however, the content of Prop 20 has not gone through the proper process, is inadequate, and is lacking in many things.
Even without the fact that we are involved in this, we as hard-core blockchainers express a solid opposition to it.
-
We are not an exchange. It is inappropriate to describe us as an exchange because it would also mislead the community. We do not admit it.
-
In the case Prop20 passes, even if our clients and their addresses are clearly identified, we will be found ineligible for the stakedrop based on Prop20. This will close the door to distribution to our clients.
-
The code to be used is not explicitly stated in the Proposal at submission, even though it involves a Software Upgrade.
-
The details of smart contract were not shared in advance, and an adequate verification period was not provided.
-
There were no changes in the drafted proposal in advance, even though the description of Prop20 has changed significantly compared to its draft.
-
As one of the Drafted Unity Prop parties, we have not received a reply from the proposers to our comments.
-
The governance should not be used as a court without clear principles and a constitution.
-
Prop 20 is essentially the same as Prop16 and it is a proposal that unfairly takes advantage of the community's misunderstanding of the falsification and false claims that occurred in Prop 16, and the only thing that has changed is the basis.
-
The fact that the core team was responsible for the mistake of the stakedrop is hidden, and Prop20 states as if we were the cause of the problem.
-
The fact that we cannot decide anything with our voting powers in terms of centralized voting rights is proven by Prop 18 and 19. Still, this fact is being ignored and on the contrary, the core team instigates the community, makes them anxious and prevents a correct understanding of the situation.
For more information on the above reasons, please check here.
https://gist.github.com/junowhale/81bb12de11317671e7b6da2805124f7d
Why have you changed the content so drastically from the previous Draft Prop? We have made some progress and were willing to agree to the Draft Prop content of Unity until Prop20 was submitted.
We could have agreed to the prop that we would lock and discuss to resolve the issue.
However, this Prop 20, which claims CCN is an Exchange to declare that we are unqualified for Stakedrop, is too conveniently interpreting parts of our article to claim that CCN is an Exchange without doing a detailed investigation CCN's business.
Please do not conveniently distort the fact that we are an entity that provides staking services and is closer to a fund than an exchange.
Prop 16 did indeed pass with Yes, but there were many votes for No and No with Veto, and many people voted Yes based on incorrect information. Therefore, the intermediate solution, the Draft Unity Prop, should have been written as a temporary solution.
Why the major change from the intermediate solution to the same content as Prop 16?
The content of Prop 20 does not appear to be a passing point that leaves open the possibility of returning it to CCN customers.
If you want such a discussion after Prop 20, please revise the content of Prop20 regarding the previous Draft Unity Prop and rewrite it to be more neutral.
If you do not do so and instead one-sided implementation, then this is not the Unity, not an intermediate solution, but a “Kill the Whale Prop”, simply an Upgrade Prop of Prop 16.
Please do not mislead the community with the name “Unity”.
Without being a part of the issue, we belong to a capitalist society, which is mainly opposed to communism. If Juno is not a Communism chain, then please stop unilaterally taking Juno down by such arrogant logic.
We basically agree to discuss and resolve this issue. We do not agree with Prop 20, which is too inadequate and attempts to end unilaterally. Let's move this issue forward by rejecting this Prop once and revising its content.
It is unfair to make a one-sided, convenient interpretation of some of the information provided by us and declare it to be an Exchange without at least doing some investigation at this point in time.
The content of Prop 20 has changed only in that the forfeiture destination for Prop 16 has changed from community pools to smart contracts, and the reason has changed from violating the rule of a cap of 50K Juno per entity to violating the rule that exchanges are exempt. Essentially nothing has changed.
Where is the intermediate solution? Where is the “Unity”?
Please stop trying to twist the rules to suit your needs and force them to fit into place, just as you did with Prop 16. We are firmly against the arrogant approach.
Again, we are not opposed to locking up and discussing. I have expressed my views in an interview, so please check it out.
We hope that Prop 20 will be revised to become Prop 21 for better resolution and rational governance based on facts.