You're a crypto whale who just landed
on the opportunity of a lifetime.
A 100 million dollar deposit straight into your wallet.
You're beyond happy.
That's generational wealth, but doesn't last long.
The community you're part of wants to strip
you of 98% of your new found wealth.
How can they do this?
Why would they do this?
What happens in the following months has been
called a ticking bomb and a dangerous precedent.
The community is rallying to vote
against you, the anonymous whale.
And the clock is ticking.
You have to convince the community and
reverse the vote before it's too late.
So how did you get here?
It all starts on March 2, 2021.
A new crypto platform by the
name of Juno is being built.
The purpose is to help the popular
Cosmos crypto network run smart contracts.
The Juno network is intended to be community ran
through what's called a DAO, which is important, and
I'll explain that in a minute, because in order
to have a community, you need holders.
Juno decided to use what's called an AirDrop,
simply depositing tokens to holders of Cosmos for free.
This way, the real community will be in control.
The rules were simple.
Step one, stake the Cosmos token.
Outside of a centralized exchange, you can't
use something like Binance or Coinbase.
Step two, get paid at lunch.
But there was a stipulation as
to not make anyone too rich.
There was a maximum of 50,000 tokens airdropped per wallet
address, but you ended up with a whole lot more.
How is this possible?
Is it even legal?
To understand how this happened, we need to
first understand why any of this matters.
The Juno network uses a decentralized autonomous organization,
or DAO method of operating in real terms.
This means that one token gives you one
vote when members need to agree on something.
Sounds great, right?
It's like that one man, one vote decision
made in the 1960s, but updated to
one token, one vote for our digital world.
This is needed because there is
no central authority on Juno.
Members hold the power in proportion to how
much of the network they actually own.
And this is okay, except when one person
owns a huge chunk of the network.
Now, not every blockchain works in this way.
In fact, none of the major coins like Bitcoin
or Ether, could get into a situation where members
can simply vote to strip away millions of tokens.
Right, so how many tokens did you, the whale, have?
Somehow 2.5 million.
The community was in an uproar against you, saying that
you must have gained the AirDrop for your own benefit.
But you don't feel that way.
This is your rightful money.
The community didn't care and quickly put together proposal for
a vote to remove the majority of your funds, something
that's never been done in the world of crypto.
The proposal asked members to vote on reducing
your wallet from 2.5 million Juno tokens
worth as much as $120 million to just $50,000. But why?
The big issue is you single handedly hold enough tokens to
make up half the quorum to pass votes by yourself.
And given your massive supply, you could personally
wipe out the entire tokens liquidity at any
time, crashing the price down to zero.
Why you would do this to your own money, I'm not sure.
But you have the network in the palm of your hand.
So, facing a 100 million dollar loss, what did you,
the mysterious whale, have to say about this situation?
Not a lot, actually, at least at first.
The days until the vote closes are rapidly passing.
Suspicion from the community as to
who you are is growing.
The pressure is on you.
You must make a move.
So you reach out to a member of the
Juno core team who goes by Wolf contract.
You state that you're a
fund representing dozens of individuals.
It's not just you, and you don't
have any intention to harm the project. Why would you?
This is all your money.
Well, contract then tweets this information.
Thankfully, without disclosing your identity, the community
begins to call and the vote is
finally in a resounding no.
You get to keep your $100 million, ensuring you
and your family are wealthy forever, to shuffle around
some funds, which does cause some slippage and token
price changes, but nothing that doesn't recover.
However, things take a turn for the bizarre
when Wolf contract completely changes his tone.
Now saying that you are a dark spot
on the community that must be cleaned, that
you're damaging and draining the network, even being
called a Japanese ponzi scheme, what?
It's turning into the biggest game of hunt
the whale since Captain Ahab sharpened his harpoon.
And thanks to the new
drama, another proposal is drafted.
Proposal 16 to put an end to this once
and for all, taking all of your funds.
Once again, you're back on the offensive,
and you need to act fast.
You need to get the community on your side.
Now, speaking of community on your side, check out
the description to join my exclusive investor community.
For less than a Netflix subscription, we offer classes
and tools to grab control of your own finances
and get access to everything I personally invest in
right when it happens, trade signals and the most
helpful investor community on the freaking planet.
We have coaching every single day.
All you need to do is grab
a spot linked down in the description.
But getting the Juno community on your side is tough.
There's a conflict of interest.
If your $100 million is burned, then the
community benefits, thanks to the lower supply.
So of course they would want to vote against you.
They're going to lean that way.
You decide to write an article refuting all
the malicious claims, you reveal once again that it's
not just you, but a fund.
In fact, you manage the money
of more than 30,000 individuals.
A vote against you is actually
a vote against 30,000 community members.
You still don't reveal who you are or your company name,
but you do state that you won't use your power to
vote in this decision as a show of good faith.
But it's too late.
The community has lost trust, and frankly,
they want this to be over with.
Votes are piling up against you.
The outlook is grim.
With the clock ticking towards the deadline, the
core 1 Juno team, reached out to the
community with a very strange request.
They asked proposal 16 to be rejected,
the proposal that they set out.
They did this because they wanted more time for
a clearer way to formulate all of this nonsense.
But the vote was already in action.
More than 80% had already voted
yes to remove your funds.
Many of the votes began to shift back to a no.
But the deadline was nearing, and finally, it hit.
The vote ended up with a 97% turnout.
Insane when you consider that over 60%
is a good turnout for a US Presidential election.
The final Verdict: Yes, drain the account.
So what now?
Sit back while you lose a king's fortune?
What do you do?
It turns out nothing.
Wolf contract follows up the vote with a Tweet
saying, as you know, Prop 16 is a
signaling prop that another vote will be needed to actually
execute the draining of the account. It's not over yet.
You have to fight with everything you have to stop
this vote, including giving up your real identity, like the
fact that you indeed do operate out of Japan.
So you fight.
You argue that you're perfectly eligible for the
AirDrop, because if you refer back to the rules,
funds must be in a noncustodial wallet,
meaning not in exchange, like Binance or Coinbase.
And the cap is 50,000 tokens per address.
Not per person, not per entity.
You had dozens of addresses, and that's how you're
able to rack up more than 2,5 million
free tokens worth over $100 million.
According to you, you followed the rules, and your
clients are owed their money.
But is that accurate?
What is the definition of a centralized exchange?
For this, I need to thank Junonaut, who
did a ton of digging on Medium.
He reveals that, according to the Payment Services Act
in Japan, a crypto asset exchange service is an
entity that does any of the following: first, facilitates
the purchase or sale of one crypto asset for another.
Second, offers intermediary or brokerage services.
Third, manages users' money under rule one and two.
Fourth, manages crypto assets for another person.
It's hard to argue that this
entity doesn't hit these criteria.
We have statements from them
saying they manage user funds.
And we have transaction records showing
their clients deposited Bitcoin and received Atom.
Things are looking bad, but the vote is
still coming, and this is really your last chance.
Sure, maybe you don't follow all the
rules of who a centralized exchange is, but
that's all great area of the law.
What really matters is convincing voters
to be on your side.
It's time to quit hinting and take off your mask.
You reveal yourself to be Japanese software developer Takumi Asano,
founder of Game, a gaming blockchain and more importantly,
Game is related to the entities CCN and Debo.
For the sake of consistency, we'll refer to the
company as CCN for the rest of the video.
CCN is a Japanese investment fund built
to give access to the Cosmos network.
As many exchanges in Japan didn't offer this
service, customers send Bitcoin, and CCN turns that
into Cosmos-Atom tokens, managing it from there,
doing a variety of different things.
They attracted 33,000 users, raising
a total of $143 million.
The way that you, the whale, profit is
by getting new deposits into your fund, where
you then charge a 10% commission.
This means no, you wouldn't get all of the
$100 million dollar airdrop if the community votes in your favor,
but you would get a nice healthy slice.
On Ponzi scheme game allegations you cite that users have no problem with
throwing funds, so this can't be a ponzi.
Others disagree.
The rebuttal goes on and on, explaining things
like how you didn't sell tokens in order
to buy a mansion, and showing conversations for
both contracts that Juno rep from earlier.
But the question remains how will the community vote?
The days are counting down.
Will you be able to keep your rewards?
I mean, there's no doubt that this is a strange case.
However, with so many new networks cropping up
and growing as we speak, it's worth thinking
about how similar situations could be avoided, whether
the airdrop was fixed or not.
This kind of problem with one member getting
a huge number of tokens is always going
to lead to fears, suspicions and arguments.
As we've seen, the Juno community is split over
this manner, and the biggest thing to take away
from this case is it's incredibly difficult to reach
consensus on sensitive issues like this one token, one
vote is great in theory, but what if mob
justice takes over and people make poor decisions, are
vindictive, or acts purely out of self interest?
On the one hand, it's true that one
whale hoovering up so many tokens could have
a disastrous effect on any network.
Yet some Juno members correctly point out that delving
into someone's private wallet and taking out millions of
tokens goes against the principles of these projects decentralization
and the principles of life in general.
So you, the whale, with $100 million resting
on a single vote, make one last ditch
effort in offer to the community.
Vote no on Prop 20, and you will give
half of your tokens directly to the Juno community.
The other half will go to your clients.
The 33,000 people you hold money for.
That's really all you can do?
Time goes past and votes roll in.
Millions of votes submitted making the
final decision to remove the funds. It's over.
Your supply will shrink from 2.5
million tokens to just 50,000.
What do you think?
Justice served?
Or is this all unfair? What do you think about it?
I'd like to quickly introduce you to the
whale sponsor of this video iTrustCapital
With iiTrust, you can place your crypto in a Roth
retirement account, allowing you to invest and trade crypto, all
without having to worry about capital gains taxes.
If you use the link in the description,
you'll find additional information as well as receive
$100 in Bitcoin free for joining.
So just grab that link down below and thanks SPF.