Home
News
- A large holder or whale was accused of manipulating the airdrop for October on the Cosmos based Juno Blockchain.
- This resulted in the community’s one-of-a-kind move to vote and alter the funds via on-chain governance.
- But is it as easy as it looks? After all, complexities tag along with required significant changes.
The community took a benchmark move on the Juno Blockchain, which is based on Cosmos. This was apparently the first time that a blockchain community has voted formally to alter a user’s fund.
A governance proposal on the Juno Blockchain, Proposal 16, has passed through the chain’s token voting governance system. This proposal highlights the community’s approval on cutting down the balance of a whale in JUNO tokens. This large holder was accused of manipulating the Juno launch airdrop for October.
This move is significant because this is primarily the first time the concept of on-chain governance was used to alter a user’s token balance. But is this move all about positives, or does it undermine the rules-based trustworthiness of the system, some stakers and developers raised such concerns.
This large holder was cited to be a manipulator for the airdrop, and it further represented itself as an investment group rather than an individual to put a veil on its suspected behavior. The whale argued that the wallet splitting that appeared as gaming the giveaway was actually to serve the clients.
It further opined that it thought about the giveaway funds to belong to the clients rightfully. And these claims might have witnessed some backlash and might have influenced some to vote against the proposal. Finally, Proposal 16 resulted in 40.85% Yes, 33.76% No, 3.59% No with Veto, and 21.79% abstain.
But it seems like the implementation of the decision won’t be a smooth one because various on-chain governance systems facilitate different parameters to change automatically through a vote. And Juno is a system based on Tendermint open-source software that allows the changes of parameters for the issuance in the future but not for the current balances change.
Hence, Implementing Proposal 16 might require a hard fork that involves taking a snapshot, altering the whale’s balance, and then restarting the chain again. But apart from this, the risk with the hard fork is that there is a possibility that only a few validators remain on the comparatively smaller chain Juno, and it could be financially risky to choose continuation with the original chain.
These existing complexities are challenging the blockchain system’s fundamental truths. The system of on-chain voting might look to be an effective one, but eventually, dynamic changes are something that involves complex procedures.
ALSO READ: DAO startups reach record number in Y Combinator of Web3
Andrew is a blockchain developer who developed his interest in cryptocurrencies while pursuing his post-graduation major in blockchain development. He is a keen observer of details and shares his passion for writing, along with coding. His backend knowledge about blockchain helps him give a unique perspective to his writing skills, and a reliable craft at explaining the concepts such as blockchain programming, languages and token minting. He also frequently shares technical details and performance indicators of ICOs and IDOs.
