Transparency report for $PNK hold by the Kleros Coop and the core team
(not creating a dedicated forum thread as the transparency is already mentioned above)
Vitalik’s blog: https://vitalik.ca/general/2022/09/20/daos.html
I represent Kleros community and I would love to know what is the situation, asking directly at the source.
- Transparency reports are common.
- Declaration of interests are common.
Core value proposition of Kleros is decentralised community of jurors. Trust as currency, trust as building block, trust as necessary starting point.
The list of potential outcomes:
- all clear
- some minor issues but generally OK
- mistakes were made - write a post-mortem and create an internal policy how to handle it in the future
- ignoring and sweeping under a carpet - unlikely to succeed in the long run, internet remembers, “bullshit asymmetry principle”
EDIT / UPDATE
I initiated message on the Forum and in the meanwhile an answer appeared on Telegram: https://t.me/c/1654173792/6976
TLDR: encouraging to stake more PNK to prevent a serious attacker
I also saw that the amount staked were quite low in % of the circulating PNK, and that if we have an serious attacker, and Avraham is a serious attacker, he obviously an enemy of defi projects, but in some way I admire his holistic (attacking on multiple fronts and playing with a of governance, loans, insurances, botnets, etc) abilities, that we should work on having a higher staking rate.
As this was a short term threat, I just encouraged people to stake (talked to a few people, make some Twitter posts encouraging staking).
Reasonable explanation.
Not taking any action and allowing this dude to defraud Kleros would have been much worse. What would be even better: transparency report, post-mortem, explaining the situation and what steps were taken.
I trust Clement more than the dude sitting in custody, awaiting IRL trial: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-13
Eisenberg FUD campaign: The Kleros experiment has failed - by Avraham Eisenberg
EDIT / UPDATE: digging deeper, some results from Google for “Mizu case 1170”
-
Rebuttal on Helliast: https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/Qma4MrcV677wi4vHuQyYpmCRHqudLQUc5qaUFvNZGHifUi/1170-5a.pdf (by Mizu)
-
Also by Mizu: https://ipfs.kleros.io/ipfs/QmYr4e5jpNSjeUBw9BbM2G156eMmxcaMaknm17JHm8WP8G/1170-6a.pdf (27 pages)
-
Role playing game as evidence: Kleros Case 1170
The sheer complexity of the dispute is making your ears ring. Cold sweat runs through your forehead. You feel dizzy, think about your bag, and weigh your options.
-
Bunch of personal attacks on Clement: https://hackmd.io/@antikorrupt/ryOCBIJl2 (archive)
-
Some wallet analysis: https://hackmd.io/kUKQBz0SQwC83S373_ejyw (archive)
-
Jerome funded by Eisenberg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUsld8mVfTg
https://t.me/c/1654173792/7015
ATTACK or counter-ATTACK?
At this point I believe there is loads of evidence supporting the thesis of Kleros core team member increasing the stake in the technical court.
It does not pass my bullshit filter the possibility of it happening spontaneously. There has to be some explanation and Eisenberg sounds like a reasonable excuse.
But:
- WTF no transparency
- WTF not making it a headline bullish event
- WTF not using it to establish a policy about internal dealing
Due to a large number of WTF above - an explanation from someone more knowledgeable than me required - ideally the core team and people personally engaged in this case.