Preview
"I am just a fund"
Since they decided to be deceiving once again and present a medium article which includes a lot of unbacked false info.
In the first thread, I've talked about what they did.
In this thread, I'll address their article and talk about who they are.
Before I dive in, the entity in question decided to vote "Abstain" with a medium article link in the transaction's memo
mintscan.io/juno/txs/BC2DDD77054B64234CCA86E4347269924BCE717D637C1B651FA5AAF7567B6199
Here's the article link medium.com/@WhaleJuno/our-statement-on-juno-prop-16-5a06b26e6cff
Note that addresses can change their own votes which means they can change their vote from "Abstain" to "No" in the last minute, and due to their large voting power, I definitely recommend everyone especially validators to carefully consider their vote for proposal #16
Now let's debunk this article through on-chain evidence.
Moving through the article, they were using the "trust me bro" technique without any backing to their claims.
Here's when they first started talking about what they were doing on chain and we can prove them wrong.
"less than 1% slippage per day"
mintscan.io/osmosis/txs/247EA70CAD42AB350C520E45024F6B058FA52CB48472838DE1B4625A30998D27
mintscan.io/osmosis/txs/D4D395B8A11F441F1A8535D27F4E20FD7F7B4844BAB5299867E20E8D576D23A5
These are two swaps of 33K $JUNO and 58.7K $JUNO with only 1 minute in between executed on 8th of Jan.
Note these two consecutive txs were executed when $JUNO was $600M MarketCap not today's $1.75B
So I'll let you imagine what kind of slippage and the effect these swaps had back then. They had zero care and its proven via on-chain transactions.
The next comforting lie is "We could have voted NoWithVeto on Prop #4"
No smartass, you couldn't.
The only card they could have played when proposal #4 came out was to "play nice"
Why? Because their $JUNO was staked. If they voted No/WithVeto, the community would have followed with another proposal after fully losing trust.
As I said earlier, they knew what they were doing.
The rest of the article was a "trust me I am nice" while trying to redirect their accusations onto other whale addresses or even the core team.
The community isn't hunting wealth, they are fixing a significant stakedrop gaming which occurred on their network's genesis.
The fact that they started comparing themselves to the Core team was ironic. Even if we take this ridiculous comparison in consideration, the core team is not selling anywhere close to how much they did, and what matters more is the core team funds were not gamed.
Lastly they self incriminated themselves by claiming they are "GAME" and also "DEBO" where they run both validators on the Cosmos Hub, this is another immoral action by them known as a "sybil attack" - Note this is off-chain, so our governance shouldn't interfere with it.
Do not fall for comforting lies presented by a pretender. Make sure to vote and to not be too distracted by loud individuals, especially when they have no skin in the game.
The chain is public and so are the evidences. Make your own mind, your vote is the strongest actor.
For the 2nd part of the thread, if you only abide by on-chain actions to conclude your voting decision, then there's no need to continue reading.
If you consider off-chain actions, relative to the entity in question, helpful to your conclusion, then feel free to continue.
Who is the entity?
GAME aka DEBO aka CCN "Cosmos Club Network"
Based in Japan, they started operating in May 2020, where they planned to launch a pyramid scheme system using $ATOM
This is their original twitter account @Cosmos_ATOM_33
Here's a screenshot of their website which is still up however I will not link it as I do not recommend anyone to visit it.
This is their registration page where its named "Invite Code" indicating their MLM affiliate protocol, and it says "We are not accepting new registrations"
How does the pyramid scheme work?
They rely on luring victims with an affiliate system where the victim buys $ATOM except that it goes into CCN's wallet and not the buyer's. They sell the rights of owning $ATOM within their system's wallets. All $ATOM was held in CCN's wallets.
Note that with such structure, their validator details said "Let's exit scam" Ironic, isn't it?
They justified it through the medium article that their English is poor and they meant "Eliminating scammers" I'll leave that up to readers to either believe or laugh at.
What happened next?
$ATOM had a price rally which triggered louder marketing by the victims, seeing that they are becoming richer within CCN, so more victims were lured and so does the pyramid grows.
They split the MLM-obtained $ATOM into multiple wallets. Could there have been intentions to game airdrops on the ecosystem since $ATOM started rallying in price? Maybe. Maybe not. But that's what they did and what caused the gaming of airdrops in IBC such as $OSMO and $JUNO.
So how does this pyramid scheme profit?
1. The funds were in their pockets, they were a middleman between victims and their $ATOM. A robbery waiting to happen.
2. Victims were clueless about their airdrops eligibility, so CCN became the "whale" by seizing the airdrops.
Some CCN investors/victims found out later about the airdrops, so they questioned CCN about why they didn't receive them.
CCN deceived its victims claiming they weren't eligible for these airdrops so they got "nothing."
To calm the robbed victims, they convinced them that they will receive a bonus airdrop of their project "GAME" @_GAME_official
The Japanese community in #COSMOS is speaking up, make sure to hear them out.
twitter.com/LunaCosmos8/status/1502622392690294795
The magnitude of immorality and unethicality by this entity is on a whole other level, and the way they present comforting lies to deceive the public seems to be consistent whether with their responses to @JunoNetwork proposals or their own MLM system.
Lastly please do not confuse "gaming" as a certain accusation for bypassing the stakedrop rules, gaming is the result of the actions they took. The intentions are unproven and irrelevant as the threats to the network remain factual.
Governance allows the community to fix it.