[RESOLVED][Signaling Proposal] : Retrieve all funds from Prop #101 back to CP
Prop #101 • PASSED: Feb 24th 2023 • VALUE: Feb 24th 2023: $10.41/ATOM: $2,082,000 | To-Date: $4.61/ATOM: $922,000 • REQUEST: (edit) 20,000 ATOM (To-Date: 213,499.31 ATOM). • RECIPIENT WALLET (Multi-Sig) : cosmos16tpt327wedq0xkxwxpj03jyqa27m3q4ywc4s7m • TRANSFERRED TO : cosmos1dm68mx9jcsyqkyzp3up7gmnu3ku84v8gf6v75u wal1 2354×896 144 KB Multi-Sig : • Dilan Asatekin [ Founder-Imperator.co ,Osmosisi Labs] • Zafercan Çakır [Founder-Stake-Relax Validatör] • Mert Fırat [İhtiyaç Haritası Ahbap organization] • Nova Ratio and 0xwilds (Prop#101 original proposer in this forum post) Hello, Cosmos Hub Community. Fully acknowledging its good will, it saddens me to say, unfortunately, that with no update from the original proposer since Feb/Mar 2023 and upon revisiting the Aid Proposal for Earthquake Survivors in Türkiye , some community members have voiced their opinions to effectively retrieve these funds back to our Cosmos Hub Community Pool (CP). The ATOMs have been remaining idle, while collecting rewards, with >250+ pages of tx since the passing of the prop. In a recent X post (Aug 25, 2024), regarding a different topic, it seems Imperator honorably made aware…
Excerpt (1199 of 1544 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
in favor of this proposal, seems to me to be the right direction.
FHZ:REQUEST: 200,000 ATOM (To-Date: 213,499.31 ATOM).
The original request was for 20,000 Atom, not 2,000,000.
FWIW, I never wanted it to pass, but it looks like it’s already gone. Important to be accurate before putting up a new proposal.
Thank you, @tknox35 for the correction. Edit has been made.
With you there regarding not wanting this proposal to have passed in the first place. Fascinating and extremely concerning, however. Upon writing this signaling proposal, the funds were present but within 7 hours, it’s gone with no tx showing funds being moved?
Great. I will support this.
A correction is needed,
Shouldn’t it be Prop ### : Retrieve all funds of Prop #101 back to CP.
Prop Title has been edited, thank you @waqarmmirza.
Personally have not submitted an on-chain proposal before so would humbly appreciate, and be absolutely honored, to collaborate and make this happen.
This is too late to do anything here IMO. The address you added seems to me like it is some exchange although I could be wrong we do not know about the entity, person behind that account.
And how do you plan to return those assets? Even if this proposal passes you cannot force the coins to be sent without heavy modification to the chain itself.
If we ask those organisations to give the tokens back I do not think we have a legal cause to ask for the tokens since it was a donation and I do not know was there any sort of contact? The only way I could see ATOM tokens getting back is if we prove that the money never reached those people that needed the aid in the first place. I am not a lawyer but from my perspective the Network does not have a leg to stand on this matter.
To be clear I support this proposal but correct me if I am wrong hereI do not see a way to enforce any of the request without legal work, or without doing a Juno, doing a fork and taking the tokens from the another account which I guess is some sort of exchange which I think it would not be fair to this account/exchange whatever it is.
Hello,
Who was owning the proposition and managing the fund for that?
It looks indeed hard to retrieve the funds from an exchange, but we can surely see with the person in charge and get more details about how the funds were used, how much remain, etc.
This is also why it’s important to have governance linked to worldwide juridictions and be able to operate off chain action/decision in case of grift/fraud.
Hey @FHZ
Are the funds in the original wallet?
Hi,@Kamikaza731.
According to Prop#860, retrievals, or “claw backs,” like this are indeed possible. Unsure, however, whether or not this wallet is an exchange address. If someone could help identify, would greatly appreciate your help.
Hello,@StakeLab
Prop#101’s requested funds were sent to this Multi-Sig wallet
Greetings, @wassie
Funds were then transferred to this wallet on Feb 24th, 2023.
Edit to the original post have been made to clarify these concerns.
I have checked the wallet and it looks like a CEX wallet. We can not tell if those funds were used or not if it is in the CEX wallet neither we can clawback i believe.
bad news. i am still asking me how this happened, this vote was sad for the hub
@wassie Thank you for taking the time to look into that. Would you mind sharing how you got to that conclusion? For personal reference moving forward, I’d greatly appreciate it.
@Guinch_Roze Agreed. At the least, we know which validators were in support of such a proposal, despite the good will behind it, at face value.
I applaud and thank you all for sharing your time for this honest effort, in light of collectively protecting the integrity of our Cosmos Hub CP. It’s questionable why more Hub leaders are not chiming into this conversation, especially when related to the CP. A sizable holding of ATOM staying idle, especially when tied to a reputable company like @Imperator.co , should not be acceptable!
Perhaps this was part of the broader strategy to indirectly centralize and takeover Hub governance.
I am not sure that this is a CEX account 100%, but i tend to think it is one, based on the account history with no stake or gov participation and all frequent inward transactions.
It was high time of crisis in Turkey and people were emotional.
@wassie Thank you for responding and continuing to engage.
It didn’t click earlier, so thank you @wassie, but i’m very intrigued that this wallet continues to receive funds, almost on a DAILY basis, from this addr (cosmos10clzsllyngem5jyz3dpqsxu2x0p5533j7937yw):
a wallet with idle ATOM as well.
How is this not concerning, NOR receiving interest, especially from those with more “power” / insider committees, who continue to prioritize re-routing peoples attention and draining funds instead of looking into issues like this?
I believe it is a CEX wallet, I further investigated sand each receive transaction has a memo in it. CEX’s cosmos wallet works in a way that there are couple of hot wallets and then cold wallets. Hot wallets receive funds and send some funds to the cold wallets. As deep as i am going it looks like a CEX wallet.
So, if it is actually a CEX wallet, then we cannot enforce anything, so maybe those funds ere actually used we can’t tell.
Hi, Wassie.
I hope you are well and thank you for looking into this further. As of today, the original funds that were transferred currently holds: 259,110.86 ATOM in the respective wallet. It curiously continues to receive transactions, now from different addresses:
- cosmos1u5we9ww76a4s0ldqh8c5q4tzwvkxualf0anxfx
- cosmos18ld4633yswcyjdklej3att6aw93nhlf7ce4v8u
with some funds being sent to:
- cosmos1j8pp7zvcu9z8vd882m284j29fn2dszh05cqvf9 (an address that holds multiple other tokens)
If this wallet is indeed a CEX address, can understand we are not able to enforce anything, but regardless, why are we able to see the active on-chain data? If the original proposer utilized the funds solely to aid survivors, curious why any funds would be sent to an address with multiple tokens? @Imperator.co
Completely baffled Cosmos Hub leaders are not engaging this issue. The granted CP funds increasingly seem to be gained for personal advantage.
@FHZ Thank you for bringing this prop.
I fully support retrieving any funds possible to the CP from prop#101. CP spends without accountability is unforgivable. Accountability for any CP spend has to be established upfrond => ALWAYS, without exception. With prop #101 this was not the case and myself and many others have pointed this out on this forum/social media at the time.
Beside @Imperator.co there were several high profile members of Cosmos hub/influencers that agressively pushed prop#101. They have responsability here. It is indeed very disturbing that they now stay silent when it comes to accountability…
Hello.
Hope all is well. Would be a shame for this endeavor to be closed, in light of retrieving these funds back to the CP, due to the lack of response from @nova_ratio, @Imperator.co, and related parties involved.
@Guinch_Roze @tknox35 @waqarmmirza @Kamikaza731 @StakeLab @wassie @Pookybear
As community members who have voiced your opinions RE the matter, what say you? Close this feat?
Thank you again for being Cosmonaut champions who voice to defend, and protect, the integrity of the collective CP.
Bonjour,
La probabilité que cette adresse appartienne à un CEX est-elle de 100% ?
Si oui, je suis d’avis de clore le sujet, malheureusement.
Dans le cas contraire, il me semble nécessaire d’investiguer un peu plus profondément (si quelqu’un est qualifié dans les explorateur des blocks) . S’il s’avère que l’adresse appartient à un portefeuille chaud, qu’elle serait pour la procédure de récupération des fonds pas le CP ?
Merci de tenir ce sujet éveillé, il me semble qu’une énième demande de financement malicieuse qui serait acceptée pourrait être un coup d’arrêt au bon fonctionnement de cette gouvernance.
Toute dépense du CP devrait avoir un retour de mise en œuvre dans la vie réelle, ce qui n’est pas le cas. La seule chose que je vois c’est de porter la “faute” sur celui qui a écrit et poussé la proposition on chain et de lui faire mauvaise publicité s’il ne dispose d’aucun moyen de pression pour la communication d’un quelconque compte rendu des dommagés.
Nothing cam be done at this point. It is a lesson for future proposals and grants. We need more strict rules on who and for what purposes community pool assets are used.
Unfortunately this discussion didn’t bring too much attention and probably the half of the people that voted yes even forgot what they voted for.
The original funds are gone. I don’t like that it passed, but there’s nothing to be done at this point.
As people explained i don’t think we have any option. but the silence of @Imperator.co is definitely worrisome as they could have saved us a lot of time.
Wishing all of you well.
In light of recent events RE @ATOMAcceleratorDAO, it has come to my attention that Dilan Asatekin, Founder of @Imperator, is listed as being part of the DAO “Review” team.
Politely, and respectfully, requesting:
@ATOMAcceleratorDAO
@neshtedle (Review Committee Member)
@Mikey_Lee (Review Committee Member)
ping Dilan to respond to this post to provide the community clarity on Prop#101, please.
Though it still remains unclear whether or not this is a CEX address (cosmos1dm68mx9jcsyqkyzp3up7gmnu3ku84v8gf6v75u), according to Mintscan, the wallet where funds were transferred to now holds 227,495.16 IDLE ATOM.
Thank you, kindly.
*Edit: Will move this update to the original thread concerning Prop 101, as this direct signaling prop has been agreed to be resolved.
We need more responsibility and more thinking + less rules.
The amount of times the opinion about this particular prop was expressed in negative light is dozens. No rules can help if people make minds up.
It is truly unfortunate to see the well known validators, who voted in favor for this proposal to pass, remain silent.