We voted No on Prop20. In this article, we describe the reasons.
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.
Prop20 states that CCN is an exchange because of the article we submitted. It is stated as if we admitted we are an exchange. This kind of misleading representation is not appropriate. We did not offer any kind of exchange service. We disagree with the assertion that we should be excluded from the stakedrop on the ground that we’re an exchange.
It is so contradictory that their only evidence that we are an exchange is the article we published, while they, who created Prop20 such as Dimi, Frey, wolf, Jabbey, etc., claimed that we were not trustworthy at all from Prop16 onward.
The failure to conduct a more thorough investigation before the stakedrop and Prop16 was the root cause, yet they are trying to identify us as an exchange without the careful investigation and inadequate grounds just like before.
We disagree because this is inappropriate in governance where accurate evidence is required. Instead of conveniently using parts of our article as evidence that we are an exchange, they should establish an appropriate third-party organization, conduct research in Japanese and other languages, and conduct unannounced interviews with clients to claim that we are an exchange, along with clearer evidence.
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 detail of Prop 20 is not what realizes decentralization by distributing CCN’s JUNO directly to CCN clients to solve a fundamental problem while protecting Immutability and address owner’s sovereignty, which are important in blockchain.
Prop20 attempting to clarify that the stakedropped JUNO have never belonged to CCN or CCN clients by stating CCN was ineligible for the stakedrop. And Prop20 tries to take it away, lock it in smart contract, and then decide whether or not to burn it.
There’s no description following the consideration of a distribution to CCN’s clients. Instead, it was rewritten compared to the drafted proposal to close all such possibilities.
Some of the core team members suggested locking it up first and then discussing the distribution of JUNO to the clients. But, when Prop 20 is passed with that kind of detail, it is hard to believe that there will be any discussion about the distribution to the client.
It is just burning.
After Prop 20 passes, no matter how hard we try to prove that the clients are real and that their addresses are valid, there will be no reason to distribute JUNO to the clients as long as CCN is determined to be ineligible for the stakedrop.
We do not agree with burning that is made to look like “Unity”.
The code to be used is not explicitly stated in the Proposal at submission, even though it involves a Software Upgrade.
Please refer to the following tweet.
https://twitter.com/takumiasano_jp/status/1518443879238082560?s=20&t=biJXgQ0VWBc1nLpArSn4_A
The details of smart contract were not shared in advance, and an adequate verification period was not provided.
We offered to Dimi and Frey to properly review the smart contract implemented for Prop 20 before voting. They admitted it before but in reality, they didn’t provide enough time to do it. Actually, after proposal 20 was submitted, the GitHub that manages the smart contract source code was made public.
https://github.com/CosmosContracts/cw-unity-prop
That process did not allow us to have enough time to accurately check the details of the smart contract to consider whether we agree with the upcoming proposal. Since we are locking up our clients’ JUNO, we need to review it with the utmost care on whether it doesn't have a problem with security, etc. We cannot agree with Prop 20 in the situation we have not been able to do that.
There were no changes in the drafted proposal in advance, even though the description of Prop20 has changed significantly compared to its draft
Proposals should be submitted to Commonwealth in advance, as they need to be thoroughly discussed before submission. If the detail is changed, the changes should be clarified, and more time should be spent after the changes are made. The description of Prop 20 is very different from its draft, but the revisions have not been made on Commonwealth in advance. In particular, since Prop 20 is a SoftwareUpgrade proposal, it should be discussed more carefully. However, since the appropriate process has not been taken, we consider Prop 20 to be an inappropriate Prop.
As one of the Drafted Unity Prop parties, we have not received a reply from the proposers to our comments
Our prior agreement to UnityProp was a vital part to ensure that Juno would not ignore the sovereignty of the address owner. We have made a formal suggestion to the drafted proposal on Commonwealth to move things forward but have not received a response. This does not indicate their willingness to discuss and head to a better solution together to resolve the issue.
https://commonwealth.im/juno/discussion/4102-prop-17-unity-win-win-win?comment=18390
As Sunny, a project member of Osmosis, points out, we believe that the community’s governance should be used for protocol upgrades and that it is wrong to use it as a trial.
https://twitter.com/sunnya97/status/1518359147930173442?s=20&t=DNTmnFlxgG4Do5eJjTAQYw
Governance should be only a legislature and should not serve as a court to retroactively adjudicate past cases.
This is even more problematic because there are no clear rules, and the process that is inherently necessary to conduct a trial is omitted, turning it into a witch hunt based on likes and dislikes.
In a usual trial, claims of both sides are judged by a neutral party in light of existing law, but the current trial on Juno is no longer neutral because of the incentive to burn or lock the asset for the short term profit of the community members.
This is like the situation where a plaintiff files a lawsuit and he decides the trial's outcome by himself.
If we want to conduct a fair trial, the community should first establish the constitution as we proposed after Prop 16. The process and order are wrong as it is.
It would also not be problematic to submit a proposal to confiscate the asset of those who has received the stakedrop but only sold part of it or reward without buying any JUNO on the grounds that the stakedrop intends to attract people who contribute broadly to Juno's development and that those who only sell JUNO without the purchase are harmful to Juno.
Furthermore, this address has sold 50,000 JUNO in a short period of time, causing a price drop of about 10%. It could be possible to submit a proposal to limit the amount of JUNO that is sold per day on the grounds that such an action of the account causes risks draining Juno's liquidity and is harmful for the community.
https://www.mintscan.io/juno/account/juno1lg80fgyel47tlt8hnhxx2akh4dr2e0jc96n480
Since Prop 16, the scope of what can be done through governance has become ambiguous. The community must calmly have a discussion to clarify that.
If the chain becomes communism, dictatorship by the core team is inevitable.
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.
Prop 20 states that Prop 16 was widely supported by community members. But this is largely because falsified rules and false claims intentionally distorted the community’s perception of us.
More than 1 month had passed since the passing of Prop16 until the submission of Prop 20 and the core team had abundant time to correct the lies and mistakes spread by Prop 16 and tell correct information, but they wouldn’t try to do so. They again try to pass their assertion one-sidedly by taking advantage of this situation where many community members believe misinformation.
The core team needs to take the role of spreading information neutrally and broadly to the community in order to have rational and reasonable governance based on correct information, rather than emotional like/dislike voting. We do not agree with Prop20, as we do not believe that we’ll see proper governance in Prop 20 as long as no such processes above are in place.
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.
Why did the problem of the stakedrop happen? It’s because proper investigation was not carried out in advance. We were validators on CosmosHub under the name of CCN at the time Juno's stakedrop criteria was disclosed. And information and photographs about our meetups are tweeted on the account of @takumiasano_jp. Wolf and Jack knew us and sent us DMs to support the vote in their favor by our ATOM on Cosmos Hub.
So they clearly recognized CCN. However, they failed to investigate our validator address, and the whole problem occurred. The core team was totally responsible for this mistake, not us. Nevertheless, they have made us look bad. Furthermore, they have made no effort to clear up misunderstandings about us and now they unilaterally claim that we are ineligible and our JUNO should be taken away.
We do not agree with such an approach.
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.
It is claimed that our JUNO is a centralized voting power, and it could be misleading as if we could decide anything against the community's will.
As the community can see, considering the result of Prop 18 and Prop 19, it has already been proven that if we try to do something against the will of the community, it is not possible. Also, as Wolf argued during Prop 4, the fact is that our share is decreasing over time. Prop 20 is not appropriate as a SoftwareUpgrade proposal because the act of giving correct information was not done and only convenient information was written to support their claims.
Also, the core members voted immediately after Prop 20 was submitted, and over 2 million votes were instantly cast for Yes. I do not think it is the right thing to unfairly use the votes that the core team has to induce the community’s voting.
In terms of concentrated voting power, the core team’s influence and their amount of JUNO are more problematic. As long as the power could be concentrated in the core team by nature, they must try to be more neutral than necessary.
Otherwise, Juno becomes a dictatorial chain with power concentrated in the core team.
shit i voted yes now i want change