Blockchain Trilemma! Is it reasonable to explore forced asset collection from the Juno airdrop incident?

The trolley problem is a classic "ethical dilemma" where one must choose between allowing five people to die or causing the death of one innocent person due to one's own actions, with no clear correct answer. Recently, a similar issue has emerged in the blockchain industry, specifically in the Cosmos ecosystem's Juno network, proposing the forced seizure of whale assets.

Juno Network Token Airdrop

The whole incident began with the Juno Network's native token JUNO airdrop. Juno Network, as a smart contract chain in the Cosmos ecosystem, initially airdropped JUNO tokens to ATOM stakers at a 1:1 ratio. However, to prevent large whales from overwhelmingly staking, causing excessive token concentration, a whalecap limit was set. Under this restriction, each wallet could receive a maximum of 50,000 JUNO tokens.

Nevertheless, despite the limit, it was still possible to stake additional airdrops by creating multiple wallets. One whale managed to accumulate a total of 2.5 million JUNO tokens, approximately 9.6% of the total staked amount, through this method.

Upon discovery, this incident immediately caught the attention and concern of the community. To prevent token concentration and malicious dumping, the Juno Network community initiated governance proposal Proposal #4 on 10/7 last year, asking the community whether the 90% JUNO balance of that whale address should be eliminated.

Shortly after the proposal was made, the whale voluntarily contacted the Juno Network development team Core-1, stating that they were actually a fund team responsible for managing ATOM and JUNO on behalf of many individuals, expressing support for the Juno Network and no intention to harm its ecosystem.

Ultimately, the proposal was rejected with a 56.36% disapproval rate and only 7.12% approval rate, bringing the event to a temporary conclusion.

Whale Address Dumping

However, this seemingly friendly fund team has been continuously transferring the received JUNO tokens over the past few months. In the first three months, a total of 250,000 JUNO tokens were transferred to the Cosmos ecosystem's AMM Osmosis, and exchanged in large quantities for other cryptocurrencies. This action has led to a drop in JUNO's price and significant slippage.

This malicious behavior has once again sparked community panic. Continued selling like this is damaging to both price and liquidity. To address this crisis, governance proposal Proposal #16 emerged, suggesting that the whale's funds should be removed, leaving only 50,000 JUNO tokens. The removed funds will be transferred to the community fund pool to compensate affected validators.

Currently, this proposal has a high approval rate of 68.72%, with only 9.98% in opposition. Voting will end on 3/16.

Tram Dilemma Redux?

In the classic tram dilemma, one can choose to sacrifice one person to save five. In this Juno event, removing one whale's assets could ensure the stability of the entire Juno Network. However, is this forced removal reasonable and in line with the decentralized spirit of blockchain?

Although there are regulations on whale limits, the behavior of exploiting multiple addresses to stake has not been explicitly prohibited, at most considered unethical but not necessarily illegal. Moreover, it was the attention drawn by the accumulation of 50 addresses that raised community concerns. What about users who have created 5, 10 addresses and continued dumping? Should they receive the same treatment?

However, as this is a decentralized world, everything is decided by the community. The community has the right to change what they consider unethical through voting. But the reason behind all this seems to stem from the flaws in the initial airdrop rules. Through the power of the community and sacrificing the rights of a few, is it really that just?

How do you, as readers, view this? Would you vote in favor or against?