Decred scandal? Project Founder owns more than 2M DCR coins

[tacoreturns]

Decred is one of those coins that wanted to "fix" bitcoin. Their big features were governance and a hybrid pow/pos model.

Their founder Jake Yocom Piatt has talked negatively about Bitcoin since the Greg Maxwell days, ever since Bitcoin Core declared btcd as persona non grata. He has repeatedly called Bitcoin too centralized under BCs control. He also strangely calls miners malicious for selling instead of participating in their proof of stake system.

Now it turns out that Decred there is evidence that over 2M of the 21M coins are owned by the Decred founder. This would be double the Satoshi amount , and effectively means a single person has a de facto veto power over all governance decisions. Over time, these holdings will grow even higher.

There is a crazy discussion on the Decred reddit. Their admins first asked for proofs, but then started censoring the posts when the evidence started rolling in. It got reposted in second reddit.

They just voted over 90% to kill ASIC miners, and move to a 99% Proof of Stake model. There is now a question about how much of the voting came from their founding team whales, and how much comes from 'regular users'. IIRC, multiple people have 6 figure bags from staking their premine.

They delivered on non-trivial software innovations, but it's sad to see human ego and a centralization of power take over again.

[mu_enrico]

I owned this coin in 2017/2018, and still remember they have an 8% pre-mine. If you assume the 4% (800k coins) is already in the founder's bag and the other 4% is distributed to the alt accounts of the founder, he'll get 2M coins after a simple pump-and-dump scheme and staking.

The lesson is there will be no decentralized coin after BTC, because of pre-mine, stealth-mine, ICO, etc.

[vv181]

In the first place, having a "veto" right is the thing that is where the loophole began. Sooner or later, I believe it is inherently prone to centralization power.

As the allegation arises, this kind of problem is tricky to overcome if the communities of the project itself are not strong and united. Even if they are persistent toward keeping the project/community stable and sustainable, hard-forking the project is the only way to go if the alleged developer itself does not cooperate.

They delivered on non-trivial software innovations, but it's sad to see human ego and a centralization of power take over again.

The hybrid pow/pos model is experimental, and so does Bitcoin itself. If the system/project design can not sustain the longevity of a decentralized consensus or processes, there must be a flaw that deem the project not to withhold the decentralization.

[jossiel]

I still remember this coin and when it was launched, it was the time of hype of ICOs and these pre-mine or founder's allocated supply has always been taken note.

That's a lot to control the ecosystem of their coin and whether proven or not, this will create a lot of worry and panic to their community. So, just as the market today, this has probably added to the effect of what it is experiencing now but still not that much.

[Minermaxer]

In the first place, having a "veto" right is the thing that is where the loophole began. Sooner or later, I believe it is inherently prone to centralization power.

As the allegation arises, this kind of problem is tricky to overcome if the communities of the project itself are not strong and united. Even if they are persistent toward keeping the project/community stable and sustainable, hard-forking the project is the only way to go if the alleged developer itself does not cooperate.

They delivered on non-trivial software innovations, but it's sad to see human ego and a centralization of power take over again.

The hybrid pow/pos model is experimental, and so does Bitcoin itself. If the system/project design can not sustain the longevity of a decentralized consensus or processes, there must be a flaw that deem the project not to withhold the decentralization.

Good catch - many people know the truth after what they did. According to the evidence, up to 85% of their "staked" are held by Dev affiliated groups.  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5479728.0


There is now names posted of the top 2 Decred whales who decided to keep the miners coins for themselves:

• Jake Yocom Piatt (holds up to 3 million DCR)
• Jonathan Zeppettini (holds more than 1 million DCR)

The Decred governance voting is a rigged show. You can vote how you want, but this group can veto anything and they call the real shots.

More proof that Alt coins are scams

[btc78]

At the end, it is just really almost centralized because one entity holds this much power of the entire project I guess it still would depend on how he decides to go about this project running forward

Good or bad decisions, he will most likely just think of his own and act accordingly to what is best for him which should be quite scary for investors who only hold a few coins

[cryptoaddictchie]

The lesson is there will be no decentralized coin after BTC, because of pre-mine, stealth-mine, ICO, etc.

Probably right but thats the norm already for upcoming and new projects. No one would do what Satoshi did that give every coins to the community or unless someone develope soemthing that no plans to earn from it but is there a guy like that anymore? Purely for community only? I doubt it.

This decred coin is worst even up to now its being bombarded with issues on their social and groups.

[wheelz1200]

Just another scam coin created to provide wealth for the inner circle of people.  Every new cycle more coins come along and say they are gonna change the world when really it's just another copy paste coin with the creator looking for more bitcoin lol. 

[dansus021]

what a joke 2M out of 21M is fu*king crazy anyway are they have proof like solid that show their 2M I think is like scandal of XRP but this one is crazy but you know what crypto is full of scandal because this world is at the grey area in my opinion.

Decred is one of privacy coin right?

[Bureau]

It is normal to see those coin projects that were created to look down on Bitcoin were created with false hope. Coincidentally these coins have owners who are surrounded by scandals and scams and they are not ashamed to face the public. I have never invested in this coin or was interested but I still remember once it had a good rank on the coin market cap and now it is nowhere to be seen on the first page. Like other altcoins, this one will slowly fade away and die in the future.

[Kelward]

At the end, it is just really almost centralized because one entity holds this much power of the entire project I guess it still would depend on how he decides to go about this project running forward

Good or bad decisions, he will most likely just think of his own and act accordingly to what is best for him which should be quite scary for investors who only hold a few coins

This is the shrewd nature of big businesses at the very top, they startup a project with the sole aim of enriching themselves and calls for investors in the name of being a public enterprise. It's common in the business would, CEOs will want to hold majority shares so they can conveniently call the shots, even at the detriment of other minority shareholders.

If the Decred project founder is able to own more than 2m DCR coins, and is able to pilot the affairs of the project profitably then I don't have a problem with that, afterall if the coin goes down he'll be the most affected. It's only when the founder manipulates decisions to favor only himself that there's a problem.

[Grumlin]

I think no one interesting that. Look at other projects, when they sell only 3-10%, others 90% keeps on the mining, it does not prevent VC from pumping the coin, and anyone to get profit from this