@JohnnyWyles the wording here reflects the reality that the DAO isn’t really the right way to address this. I think that at this time we should leave the process to the funded people / teams. Hopefully they will respond here.
I also tagged them on Twitter / X, but zero response.
That is bad.
I don’t know that there is more that we can do.
RIP ion
Hey, I just spoke with Jiwon from manythings.
It seems that the ions are in a vesting account, with 5 year vesting.
He let me know that they’d be writing a software upgrade that:
- completes the vesting
- takes the liquid ions, and sends them to the community pool using MsgFundCommunityPool.
I’ll link this post to him, too, so that if there’s anything more to update, it can be updated here.
4 Likes
This is interesting in general, but the question is if it is desired all together. Because it can also be used (potentially) in the future to lure investors to a project with long vested periods, and unlock them using this code when the price is nice and dump it to 0 with the freshly unlocked assets ^^
I also spoke to Jiwon yesterday. I think the vesting unlock should automatically return the ION to the ION DAO. Unlocking into the same account that they are vesting to is very trusting of the ION DAO - I don’t believe ManyThings would dump the lot, but the point of smart contracts is to remove the need for trust.
The ION DAO can then run a MsgFundCommunityPool, bring forward an alternative proposal for using these IONs, or ask to retain them in the ION DAO.
They would only need to request them again if a developer was found to take over IBCX development or a secondary project.
1 Like
Has there been any further communication with ManyThings?
The team no longer responds on Telegram and they continue to receive ION.
No, I’ve pinged them a few times with no response since the above message.
@faddat have you had any contact around this software upgrade they were writing?
1 Like
Is that not something which can be stopped via the ION DAO if the DAO-holders disagree with providing more income without a proof of work?
ManyThings is required for changes to the vesting contract and they have gone silent.
The DAO is stymied.
O wow, so it all hinges on 1 party to be able to start changes?
That is a bad situation in all cases…
Lesson 101 on accountability is that you always need 2-3 players minimum.
2 Likes
Nope. But didn’t something just go on chain?
Doesn’t look like it - anything ION DAO would upload needs to go through their governance at ion.wtf
1 Like
Welp that’s not great.
Any updates on this? Shameful behavior from ION “contributors”. I know they have all moved on to new projects (and token allocations), but this is a bad look. At least have the dignity to gracefully wind down failed experiments.
At what point do we claw the funds back forcibly? Or is there too much conflict of interest for Osmosis “governance” to bother touching this?
Mark the CPs ION to 0 or start to sell it off to salvage some value. Jim Yang liquidation protection pool, maybe. Literally anything remotely beneficial for OSMO price or sentiment idk. It is frustrating to see so much complacency and “milking” of Osmosis value. If the IONs must flow, at least route them to Johnny’s or OSL’s wallet, where the value will go to dedicated & invaluable Osmosis contributors.
edit:
Maybe manythings will come back after their ETH LRT point ponzi farm gets rotated away from ? I will be dumping my MITO airdrop the second it hits my wallet(s). Going to burn the dog NFT too 
1 Like
The potential issue with just doing a clawback is that backlash it might get due to similar initiatives taken on other ecosystems. Remember for example the prop #16 debacle on Juno?
In essence blockchain should be kinda immutable and non-reversible, whereas funds transferred to a wallet should stay in a wallet. I know Osmosis once did a clawback of unclaimed airdrop, but that is in hindsight also not the right way to do things. Initiatives have to be designed properly with safeguards in place instead of relying on clawbacks. I rather see this being an (expensive) lesson for us all to start being very very critical on funding requests or asset transfers where the guardails are not entirely clear or deemed appropriate.
I agree that this is an expensive lesson. Long-term vestings should come with this kind of clawback or be dripfed.
I did some digging into this yesterday.
The funds are being continuously vested over a 4 year period in this account: chainscope
A specific type of vesting account allows clawback, but this was not instantiated as such so there is no way to return this without changing state directly. Even for the vested recipient as far as I can see.
The only method I can think of to rectify this without directly changing state is to execute a deliberate rug of the ION liquidity using ION DAO funds.
The ION DAO currently possesses 2k ION in the treasury which would be more than enough to drain all liquidity and redistribute this to existing stakers, LPs and holders as a reduction in the value of this vested ION compared to non-vested ION.
The ION DAO could then attempt to rebuild from the position of an increased circulating supply and lower normal price.
Existing ION holders could also be granted additional ION on top of their holdings to maintain the % share they hold while diluting the vesting % share
The DAO can’t make changes to the vesting contract. Right?
Is the DAO with that fact able to do funding requests?
The vesting contract is the native cosmos vesting account setup - not a contracted version.
The one used is the continuous distribution without a clawback ability so only Osmosis governance could impact it via a state change.
That is bad… state changes should normally be avoided at all times…