I first learned about this from @forexbrokr on this post. My take is that this is all the fault of how the airdrop was conducted and the developers of JUNO should take responsibility rather than taking funds away from some whale. This is not different from communists plundering the wealth of rich. Today it could be 100 million. What about tomorrow?
My first thoughts were: Who on Earth is the idiot that thought doing an airdrop like this. I didn't know anything about JUNO before your article. The first impressions are very negative. How can I trust a project for long term that cannot even deal with a Sybil attack. Imagine a HIVE project doing an airdrop like JUNO! I cannot even think any important project here would take such an approach.
JUNO's approach completely relies on either unicorns and rainbows or centralized mobs. Neither are good ideas. I wish these people will learn from their mistakes. Even Ethereum wasn't stupid enough revert the transactions. They simply forked.
If JUNO thinks whales are a problem, they should fork like Telos did from EOS: https://medium.com/telos-foundation/introducing-tlos-the-telos-token-d6af451e161f
The whale is not responsible for the faults of the developers. If the developers don't like the situation, do what Ethereum did (or what HIVE did). I'm not onboard with stealing funds.
!PIZZA
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
As more details have come out since this article, it seems more and more likely that the sybil attack was not planned. Seems that the whale manages a large amount of ATOM on behalf of numerous Japanese private investors they have brought in to crypto. These investors seem happy, but the whale has chosen to keep the airdrops they have received for themselves rather than passing them on to the investors.
I'm still a no vote, as I feel that old saying of "two wrongs don't make a right" applies - The airdrop should have been passed on, but it also should have been designed better in the first place.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta