What's In Your Wallet
Juno Token’s $36M Typo Debacle
The copy-paste blunder that sent $36M in seized JUNO tokens to an unlinkable address has thrown the Ethereum community into a tizzy. Developers, validators, and token holders are all struggling to figure out who is to blame for the mistake.
The Juno blockchain, which is based on the Cosmos network, continues to serve as a cautionary tale for on-chain governance. Last week’s unanimous community vote was meant to plunder millions of dollars’ worth of JUNO tokens from a whale (large investor) accused of gaming a community airdrop. Instead of sending the money to an address that could be linked to the JUNO team, the vote sent it to an unspendable address on the Ethereum network.
This “accidental” distribution of JUNO tokens has caused a lot of hand-wringing within the Ethereum community. Some claim that this is proof that on-chain governance is a recipe for disaster.
The promise of blockchain-based governance is that the will of a community is directly codified on the blockchain. In a world where “code is law,” moving assets from one specific address to another should have been as simple as casting a community vote. And yet, this week’s failures of numerous human-controlled safeguards show how code-centric governance has its own share of issues. The JUNO incident is a reminder that, as with any other system, blockchain-based governance is only as good as the people who design, build, and operate it.
The community voted to remove tokens from Takumi Asano, a Japanese investor accused of gaming the Juno airdrop by over $120 million in February, in Juno Proposal 20, which was passed on Thursday. It was the first major example yet of a blockchain network voting to change the token balance of a single user who has been accused of malicious activity. The proposal, made by JUNO’s community governance group called the Genesis DAO, passed with over 90% of the vote.
Asano had been accused by the JUNO community of participating in what’s known as an “airdrop farming” scheme. The process involves setting up multiple wallets with different addresses and using them to claim airdrops—free token giveaways that often happen when a new project launches on the Ethereum blockchain. The JUNO team had initially proposed to blacklist Asano’s addresses, which would have rendered his tokens unusable.
According to the community vote, Asano ran an exchange service that should have rendered his wallets ineligible for the so-called Juno “stake drop,” which gave JUNO tokens to stakers on the Cosmos Hub blockchain. After a delay of a few days, last week’s vote was supposed to automatically run code moving the “gamed” funds – now worth around $36 million – from Asano’s wallet into a “Unity” address controlled by the Juno community.
Things didn’t turn out as expected. When the code was run on Wednesday, a programming mistake resulted in 3 million revoked JUNO tokens being sent to an incorrect address on the blockchain, where no one – neither Asano nor the Juno community – had access. According to Andrea Di Michele, a member of Juno’s “Core-1” founding developer team who goes by “Dimi,” the fudged transfer resulted from a copy-paste mistake. “When I provided the [Proposal 20] developers with the smart contract address, I pasted the address of the smart contract and simply wrote ‘Etherscan’ next to it without noticing,” says Di Michele.
The JUNO team is currently working on a fix that would enable them to retrieve the tokens and send them to the correct address. In the meantime, they have asked exchanges to halt trading JUNO tokens. Developers, according to Dimi, copied the transaction hash instead of the address; as a result, the seized funds landed in a crack in the Juno blockchain which no one has access.It is theoretically up to Validators who run proof-of-stake blockchains like Juno to conduct thorough research on on-chain upgrades, such as the one that came with Proposal 20. It’s not any one developer – it’s the entire disintermediated community of validators – that is in charge of generating blocks, securing the network, and ultimately deciding which transactions get included.
As such, one would hope that the JUNO community would have thoroughly vetted the code before it was put to a vote. That does not appear to be the case. It is unclear how long JUNO will be offline while the team works on a fix. Not one of Juno’s more than 120 validators appears to have noticed that the Unity address was copied incorrectly. “We made a huge mistake,” said Daniel Hwang, head of protocols at stakefish, one of Juno’s validators. “The fault is much more on the validators who actually carried out the code.”
“Developers may make mistakes… but at the end of the day, there should be trusted assumptions that can’t be trusted,” Hwang added. “Validationists should have due diligence in verifying the code we’re executing and running ourselves.” The core developer team and the network’s community are still determined on moving Asano’s cash to the community-controlled Unity contract rather than “burning” them inadvertently, as he warns may happen. (Asano has threatened to sue Juno’s validators if his funds are tossed away instead of going to his supposed “investors.”) The goal is to have a nice public relations event where JUNO’s token holders who were burned in the great JUNO $36 million blunder can see their money flow back into the community-controlled fund. Proposal 21, which is vague in terms of governance and aims to green-light the upgrade, contains lines that say the upgrade “[f]inalizes the Unity proposal fund transfer” and “[r]elocates the funds from a placeholder address to the Unity smart contract.” It appears that Proposal 21 will send the 3 million JUNO tokens to the correct address this time.
The JUNO team is also working on a long-term solution that would make it impossible for future Asanos to game the system. They are planning to upgrade JUNO’s staking mechanism so that a minimum amount of JUNO tokens – 1% of the total JUNO supply, or about 1.2 million JUNO tokens – is required to activate a validator node. This would make it impossible for any one person to control a majority of the network’s staking power.
Read More About NFTs Here
The initial iteration of the COGGI Coin was such a resounding success that it immediately spurred the design and production of the second iteration of the coin.
Currently Working on Putting Together a Brand-New COGGI NFT Collection
Fahura Digital Arts have stated that it is working on generating a second round of COGGI NFT Coins in response to the remarkable success of the original release of the coins. This comes after the initial release of COGGI NFT Coins.
On January 6, after Fahura Digital Arts had some early success with the sale of the first 10 Magical Non-fungible Tokens (NFT) via Miidas NFT, the company announced that it is now working on the next generation of COGGI Coins.
On January 7, the creator of the new collection started making statements about it, while simultaneously pushing the Latin phrase “per liberiore mundi,” which means “For a freer world.”
Fahura Digital Arts, the creator of the Presale “Coggi Revolution” Collection, is the entity responsible for the distribution of the NFTs that are a part of the collection.
In addition, Rice Protocol, which is working in conjunction with CoreDAO to power the NFTs, is providing the necessary computing power. COGGI Coin non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are issued by Fahura Digital Arts in the form of ERC-721 tokens for use on the CoreDAO testnet.
Concurrently with the launch of the CORE mainnet, progress has been made on the creation of the Miidas NFT platform. According to the most recent information from the CoreDAO team, the launch of the mainnet should take place in the very near future.
Because of this, in the not-too-distant future, COOGI NFTs will be able to be mined and traded on open marketplaces.
The fact that the bare minimum required to buy a COGGI Coin has been raised to 176 CORE is evidence that demand for both COGGI and CORE is only growing.
The initial collection had a large number of different designs that were shown on a variety of coins. Many of these patterns were associated with precious stones and jewelry in some way.
Fahura Digital Arts are now conducting a feedback collection effort in order to increase user participation and ensure a smooth rollout of the Core Mainnet. As this article is being written, the vote to decide whether or not the Coggi community will make a promise on the number of times it will meet together is still open.
Additionally, Fahura Digital Arts are the company responsible for developing a variety of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) with a llama theme that is compatible with COOGI Coins. You can find the COGGI Llamas on Polygon, and they host a cast of characters that are boisterous and amusing at the same time.
These llamas in the wild command a very high price as well.
The Satoshi Plus ecosystem is being constructed by the official decentralized organization known as the Core DAO. It gives miners the opportunity to gain access to other revenue streams, which they may accomplish by contributing their hashing power to the chain. As a result, miners can potentially increase their earnings.
Core exhibits a strong respect for the history of the cryptocurrency ecosystem, and this joy is matched only by Core’s excitement for its role in the future of the ecosystem. This fervor is fueled by the ideas that lie at the foundation of both blockchains.
For More NFT News, Click Here.
Uniswap, formerly known as UNI, has at long last joined the NFT bandwagon.
As part of the DEX’s most recent effort to seize a section of the market for non-fungible tokens (NFTs), the DEX has announced the release of a new NFT aggregator. This move was made as part of the DEX’s most recent push.
On January 10, Uniswap sent out a tweet in which it announced that the aggregate will consolidate NFT listings from different marketplaces into a single interface, allowing users to view all of the advertising simultaneously.
There were a few different platforms utilized, some of which included LarvaLabs, LooksRare, and OpenSea.
The Uniswap NFT aggregator was developed with the goal of making it easier for NFT traders to compare the prices of different products but what’s even more crucial is the fact that it offers a degree of efficiency that can be deployed as a weapon against the fragmented nature of the market. This is an extremely important feature.
Customers do not need to move from one platform to another in order to discover the best offers or prices since this allows for a unified shopping experience.
Increasing the number of non-fund transfer transactions that are carried out on Uniswap
It was too early to say anything till the time the paper was printed, but it is feasible that Uniswap’s NFT trading volumes may grow as a result of this remark. On the other side, the increase will be dependent on whether or not the efficiency of this new product will be successful in attracting extra users.
An analysis of the company’s past performance revealed that the trading volumes of Uniswap’s non-financial instruments had seen a considerable drop from the highs they attained around six months ago. This was discovered when the company’s history was analyzed. It was a reflection of the general drop that has been witnessed in the market for NFTs over the course of the previous year.
Nevertheless, despite the fall, a considerable amount of commercial activity was still carried out in the market. This was the case despite the fact that the price had dropped. As a result, the brand-new NFT aggregator has the possibility of causing an increase in the number of NFT trades over the course of the following few months.
Will UNI be able to carry on with their rally despite the weather?
Following a significant spike that began around the end of December 2022, Uniswap’s native token, UNI, has been seeing considerable selling pressure as of late. This increase began towards the end of December 2022.
At the time that this article was being written, it was being traded for $5.69, having experienced a little drop in value over the course of the preceding three days.
UNI could still have some room for upward movement, especially taking into account the fact that it had not been overbought at the time that this article was being produced and hence could still have some room for growth.
However, its MFI was already in the overbought zone when we looked at it, which increased the possibility of a probable decrease in value.
New evidence in support of this notion was offered by recent studies on the volume of trades.
At the time that this article was being written, the most current exchange volume figures provided by UNI indicated that there has been a decline in the amount of trading activity that has taken place after a price increase that occurred at the beginning of the week came to an end.
The ratio of money entering the market to money leaving it suggested that purchasers made up the majority of participants in the market.
The fact that UNI’s foreign exchange inflows were greater than its foreign exchange outflows at the time that this article was published is an indication that there was less buy pressure than there was demand.
As a direct result of this, there would almost certainly be an increase in the amount of selling pressure if this trend continued; nevertheless, the bulls may make a comeback if the market climate is conducive to it.
For More NFT News, Click Here.
The highly anticipated debut of the Game of Thrones NFT has already achieved its maximum capacity and is completely sold out, despite the fact that there have been delays and criticisms that it lacks “creative vision.”
The official “Game of Thrones” NFT collection, which was given the name “Build Your Realm,” was completely drained of all of its available inventory after just seven hours of its release yesterday on Nifty’s NFT marketplace.
The collection was given the name “Build Your Realm.”
It was probably not difficult to foresee the high degree of demand for these collectibles due to the general attractiveness of the event (and its new spinoff series “House of the Dragon“).
On the other hand, many people are now commenting that the quality of the artwork in the collection is equivalent to the eighth season of the HBO series, which is a big letdown for those who were anticipating a significant improvement.
Nifty’s and Daz 3D, a digital production company, collaborated on the first series of the collection in order to produce non-fungible tokens. Daz 3D was responsible for the creation and construction of the tokens.
November was the month that saw the first public disclosure of the project (NFTs). Each non-fungible token (NFT) that is mined on the Palm blockchain, which is an Ethereum-compatible sidechain developed solely for NFTs, contains several elements from the universe of “Game of Thrones.” Palm is a blockchain designed exclusively for NFTs. This enables collectors to create their very own one-of-a-kind places and avatars by employing NFTs in the construction process.
The NFTs were made available for distribution through a presale of 3,450 Hero Boxes, which was then followed by a general sale of 1,500 Hero Boxes four hours later. In all, 6,050 Hero Boxes were purchased through both of these sales. Each Hero Box may be purchased for a total cost of $150 (or about 0.11 ETH), and in addition to three Story Cards and nine Resource Cards, it includes one Hero Avatar.
The launch of the NFT has been met with criticism for two distinct reasons: difficulties with the mint, and derision directed at the embarrassingly terrible avatar designs. Both of these issues have contributed to the controversy that has surrounded the launch.
Reproducing mistakes and satirizing existing works of art
As a result of the congestion, Nifty’s released an announcement indicating that it had “paused the line temporarily,” assuring consumers that they will either receive a refund for their purchase or see it emerge in the near future.
According to the account of one user on Twitter, after waiting for one hour, they found out that they still had to wait another two and a half hours before they could mint. Another individual stated that by the time that they had gotten their NFTs, the floor price had already gone down.
The lowest price at which an NFT that is a part of a collection may be obtained immediately is referred to as the floor price of the collection.
It is not particularly typical for issues to develop with minting and delivery when a project is first introduced; despite this, the most prevalent criticism is over the avatars’ outward look, namely the hands, which are portrayed as being unrealistic.
“This Game of Thrones NFT collection is just like the last season of the program,” Justin Taylor is quoted as saying in one of his articles. “There is absolutely no creative vision, and the situation is terrible.”
Loopify, a nickname used by the co-founder of the Web3 gaming project Treeverse, referred to the collection as “the ugliest thing I’ve ever seen.” He said this in reference to the collection. In addition to that, he included an illustration of an avatar with very bizarre hands.
Despite the criticism that has been thrown towards the roasting, some people have pointed out that there is still a chance that it will be beneficial for collectors.
For More NFT News, Click Here.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login