Votes results on Proposal 16 to remove a little over 3 million Juno coins from a whale account are in. Juno network community have voted to remove the assets and leave only 50,000 that was originally intended for any whale to receive as airdrops. The final vote counts are: 41.8% voted Yes, 33.7% voted No, 3.5% No with veto and 21.7% Abstain. The majority voted yes. It will require a hardfork to implement the removal of these assets, and then maybe there will be another proposal about what to do with these assets.
I don't have any Juno coins and I have no financial interest in the network. I don't know much about the network. But it did look like a network that was that wanted to build a community driven decentralized network. I am not sure how to feel about this voting outcome. On the one had decentralized governance worked as intended. Stakeholders and validators voted, and no single entity or group decided the outcome. How else would problems be resolved in a decentralized network? On the other hand I have strong conviction that in a truly decentralized network all wallets are safe from anybody confiscating them. If one wallet can be under risk of losing assets it holds, regardless how those funds were acquired, then no wallet has total security.
How would you reconcile these two notions: stake based voting in a decentralized manner and only owner has complete control of the funds in the wallet. My position is simple, no matter what wallet integrity should be guaranteed by the blockchain and the network. Without this what is the point on even using the blockchain technologies. I thought decentralization was the essential part that provided this guarantee. I couldn't even image that something like could happen in bitcoin network or hive network. However, now that it has been demonstrated that it is actually possible, why can't it be possible in bitcoin or hive networks?
Bitcoin has miners who can decide to run a new code that would remove coins from someone's wallet. On Hive witnesses can do the same. Stakeholders can vote in the witnesses that would go for such actions. I am speaking hypothetically, of course. But since in all of these scenarios people are involved and if we have a certain set of people, there is a possibility majority could decide to remove assets from someone's wallet. What makes bitcoin or hive different that such actions can't happen? One answer can be that stakeholders in bitcoin and hive have better understanding of how important it is to keep the wallet security and integrity. What if the same people are put in a very difficult position to choose between delivering "justice", or recovering stolen funds and removing funds from a wallet?
The reason I am asking more questions than giving answers is I would like to know what else besides decentralization can be done and should be done to make a network more resilient against attacks from outside and within. Even if a community decides to vote on their own network but these votes and actions result in an attack on a wallet, it is still an attack and undermines the entire concept of "code is law" and immutability of blockchain data.
Juno, while may be a new network, is not a small network. It has a decent market cap of $1.8 billion. What is also interesting is, after the vote results the price of the $Juno coin went up a little bit. I guess some investors like this outcome. Or maybe removing these assets might mean there won't be large amount of sales of Juno coins in near future.
The irony of this whole situation is that, it seems community doesn't want to have one entity too much influence in the network, yet demonstrates this entity had no influence at all. Logic suggests me that after such actions people would lose faith in the network. But perhaps, since many preferred this outcome, this will actually drive more interest in the network. I wouldn't be surprised if the price of Juno kept going up as a result of this. Crypto is strange.
I also learned that Juno network has an interesting vote option - No With Veto. This voting option means a strong No and signals that the proposal itself is harmful for the network and may result in penalties for the proposer. That is really interesting. I would think it would be utilized in situations like this. Because I believe the Yes result of this proposal can actually be harmful for the network. I wouldn't want to keep any of my assets in the network that can easily remove one's assets. Of course, chances of anybody making a proposal to remove my assets specifically are near zero. But still, I wouldn't trust such wallets.
What if it has nothing to do with wallets and blockchain technologies and better way of protecting property? It may just as well be only about money. No wonder many still hesitate to get into crypto world. Let me know your thoughts in the comments.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta