Freeze stfil user’s transferred asset address #989
Replies: 15 comments 20 replies
-
I have been closely following what’s going on with stfil protocol in the past couple days and have been quite evolved in a couple (now) community self-organized effort in response of what’s happening, so I have decent context on (1) what happened that’s shown as fact on chain, i.e smart contract activities; (2) what may or may not happened off chain, I.e: what allegedly caused protocol changes in stfil pool. I also have a lot of sympathy for the impacted teams and users, and have been working with community teams to support some impacted individuals. The following might be controversial: I personally do not think this is a good idea. The token movement was triggered by a series of signed transactions & user contract logics, it doesn’t seem to be caused by bugs in the l1 protocol or bugs in smart contract (disclaimer: I’m not suggesting l1 protocol should shift and react to smart contract bugs or not) . It will be a bad precedent to introduce censorship of FIL movement in blockchain protocol (that’s outside of the filecoin token econ protocol). Also, driving fip consensus, deploying protocol changes and network upgrades takes time. Fwiw I think it might be possible (hopefully) for the community to do an emergency upgrade for resolving some critical network consensus/security issues that severely impact network stableness and security - I don’t think this is one of those issues. There is also much unknowns to what’s effective to what the proposer want - the funds might move again to a different address during anytime from now before an upgrade, what do we do in that case? I’d like to keep brainstorming / establishing supports that could help impacted users, but I personally don’t think this proposal will be one of them. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I am a loyal fan of Filecoin and one of the victims. I have the following thoughts, which may seem naive
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
As a core dev, I agree with @jennijuju's take on this: I have sympathy but intervening would set a bad precedent. Furthermore, such an intervention is unlikely to gain wide community/SP acceptance due to concerns about setting such a precedent. At the end of the day, the L1 protocol is working as correctly. I'd also like to highlight how this differs from Ethereum's "DAO Hack": The DAO Hack took advantage of a poorly understood edge-case in the EVM, arguably a bug. The Ethereum core devs intervened because the protocol itself was, arguably, at fault. In the STFIL case, the STFIL contract, multisigs, etc. all worked correctly, they just weren't secure against rubber-hose cryptonalysis. The only protection against such an attack is decentralization: you can't reveal keys you don't have. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Note that if the argument not to intervene is "the amounts and number of users impacted are to small to justify it" or "the stFIL situation is not a protocol-level issue, but a community one and code is law", then a whale (such as PL or FF) could also propose to take upon themselves the "burden of the incertitude" with the stFIL situation by proposing a smart contract that exchange stFIL for FIL, allowing the stFIL userbase to recover FIL in exchange for their stFIL. Effectively solving the issue without requiring a FIP. If the stFIL situation is not a "hack" or a "rug pull", this would mean the said whale would be able to swap the stFIL they would accumulate back to FIL once the stFIL smart contract is "fixed". Or is the stFIL smart contract too broken atm to allow for stFIL transfers? That doesn't seem to be the case afaik. Knowing that as per #943 more than half of the circulating supply of FIL has been vested in favor of FF and PL, 5M FIL seems like not much "stake" for them, unlike for the users who might have trusted stFIL because of how official accounts, employees and related projects seemed to promote or support stFIL and collaborated with them. Furthermore, saying this should not be solved at the L1 level is an opinion, but if the majority of the community does want to solve it at the L1 level, then so shall it be lest it leads to a hard fork anyway. (Whether that's what the community wants or not is unclear at best to me at the moment, all I can see is that the core-devs are advising against doing so while some users are asking for it.) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Based on public information, it appears that the funds were seized by law enforcement as part of a judicial inquiry into potential financial crimes. This is not the DAO hack, and I'm not aware of any evidence of foul play. While the STFIL team should be considered innocent until proven guilty (and I have no reason to believe that they are guilty), the proper response to a judicial seizure of funds is to seek remedy within the legal system. Weaponizing the L1 against the police is generally a bad idea and could expose other network participants to criminal liability. I am strongly against the proposal: code is code and law is law. A proposal to reimburse the affected lenders using other funds (e.g. from the mining reserve) would likely not carry the same risks and would be more palatable. Nonetheless, I likely would not support such a proposal: STFIL users were paid a premium for the risk they took, unlike the uninvolved network participants who would be diluted to make them whole. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Since the quantity is not large and there are not many users, could you please ask the foundation and protocol laboratory to take out a small part of yours? Your billions of fil, this 5 million fil is indeed a small amount for you. Are you willing to take it out? Funny, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
这种傻逼提案要是实现了,FIL 价格 估计就 0.0000000000001 U了。 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Chiming in to concur with @jennijuju, @Stebalien, and @jsoares. I empathise with STFIL holders. I've been engaging since the beginning to help at a technical level. I'm planning to post an X thread soon, so stay tuned. However... Neither the Filecoin/FVM platform nor the STFIL contracts themselves behaved unexpectedly. Based on what's public knowledge, a state actor appears to have launched an investigation on the STFIL team, and these funds are allegedly under some form of seizure (judicial, executive?). The agency gained access to the admin multisig via the investigation by obtaining the keys of 4/6 signers (at least). They deployed a set of contract upgrades to block withdrawals for LPs, and to presumably take possession of liquid FIL in the staking pool. In my opinion, the Filecoin community/ecosystem should have no interest in antagonizing or interfering with an ongoing investigation; this is bad precedent to set, and dangerous for the entire community. Affected parties should organise to seek legal counsel. Re: comparisons with the Ethereum DAO. The latter was a self-funding mechanism, so its early hack became life-threatening to Ethereum itself. Futhermore, it exploited and exposed a rough edge of the nascent protocol (reentrancy). In fact, that was the start of arguably the most recurring smart contract development advice ("guard against reentrancy"). Conversely, STFIL is one application-space lending pool out of many, and no technical gotchas were exploited that I'm aware of. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Although I hold great reverence for the ideals of PL and FF, which is why I hold FIL, if this matter is not properly handled, I will be completely disappointed in Filecoin. I believe the entire Chinese community feels the same way. Over the years, the Chinese community has made tremendous contributions to Filecoin. In the early days of mining, many of us investors invested in mining equipment and tokens, only to see the prices skyrocket and get stuck. However, we still believe in the grand vision of Filecoin and continue to hold on. Later, as China's policies changed and mining was banned, many miners were investigated by the police and had their assets confiscated. Although there were some bad apples among these miners, investors were almost wiped out in this purge. Afterwards, the remaining investors and miners began moving their nodes out of the country, and those who stayed were cautious to avoid police attention. After the launch of FVM, we investors seemed to see hope, as we believed in the protection of smart contracts and no longer had to worry about miners being controlled by the police or running away with the money. Unexpectedly, even smart contracts could not protect us this time, and this smart contract was a top project strongly supported by FF officials. If we cannot trust this, what can we trust? Can we only trust Bitcoin? Only trust offline wallets? I hope FF can think from the perspective of Chinese investors and consider China's special national conditions. If all efforts cannot stop the greed of the police and their inhumane handling of cases, then a hard fork may be the best option in the worst-case scenario. The spirit of decentralization is indeed important and cool, but if it is exploited by bad people, is this decentralized technology still just? There is a Chinese saying, "Things are dead, people are alive." It means that people hope to be flexible and not dogmatic when dealing with things. I am not a technician, and I don't know how to deal with it technically for the best solution. This relies on the geniuses of FF, but I hope not to completely reject the hard fork option from the beginning, at least leaving room for discussion. Finally, I want to express my respect for FF's grand goals again, but please don't leave us ordinary followers behind on the road to achieving these grand goals. You are like Moses, leading us out of Egypt. Please lead us all the way to Canaan and don't abandon us in the wilderness. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This requires changing the code so that all miners can upgrade and agree. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
告filecoin所有人员:不要轻视stfil的负面影响 1、stfil作为fvm虚拟机defil排名第二的生态项目,从2023年4月份开始到9月份都是排名第一。 2、先不管stfil在中国是否违法,从项目本身而言,是去中心化的智能合约,是filecoin 生态重要组成部分。 3、stfil团队是最早参与filecoin fvm虚拟机的项目之一,一度获得filecoin 官方组织的全球黑客松大赛第二名〔中华区第一名〕,其技术基层堆栈对fvm的defil发展起到了重要的推动作用。 4、stfil得到协议实验室PL的间接投资〔通过OV孵化器〕,并得到很多场合的正面介绍。 5、stfil得到filecoin 和filecoin 基金会以及附属部门在众多场合的介绍和赞扬,肯定。 6、stfil拥有500万fil的供应量,sp节点一度超100个,算力一度超1EiB,按目前来算,占整个filecoin 主网算力的二十三分之一。〔5月25日filecoin 算力是22.91EiB〕。 7、可想而知,stfil事件如果得不到很好的解决将会对filecoin 发展有十分负面的影响。 8、请filecoin 官方团队,全球各核心开发人员,filecoin 基金会,filecoin 的sp,社区人员等,采取一切可能的措施,比如技术手段,比如主网分叉等,保护stfil的500多万的fil不受到损失。 9、不要低估,不要轻视stfil的负面影响。 虽然不单单是stfil的因素造成的,但也有很大的影响因素。 SP和fil持有者,看到了filecoin 官方,包括基金会,核心开发人员,各附属组织,社区成员等,不作为,漠视,冷淡,比如核心开发人员否定了filecoin 分叉的FIP提议。看不到应该承担的责任和担当。 从而对filecoin 的发展失去了信心,不愿意继续质押fil来封装算力! 造成fil流通量大增(通胀)。 10、这些,直接会反应在FIL的市场价格上。一目了然。 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
A warning to everyone at Filecoin: Don’t underestimate the negative impact of stfil
Judging from the filecoin main network data, since the stfil incident on April 5, the filecoin computing power has dropped from 24.569EiB to 22.91EiB on May 25, and the computing power has dropped by 1.659EiB, which is 1698.816PiB. Although it is not only caused by stfil factors, there are also great influencing factors. SP and fil holders have seen filecoin officials, including the foundation, core developers, affiliated organizations, community members, etc., inaction, indifference, and indifference. For example, the core developers rejected the FIP proposal for the filecoin fork. Can't see the responsibilities and responsibilities that should be assumed. As a result, I lost confidence in the development of filecoin and was unwilling to continue to pledge fil to encapsulate computing power! Causes a large increase in fil circulation (inflation).
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
如果FF/PL因为filecoin下面的一个defi项目就硬分叉,那么这个链也不会玩了,就是给他们把质押在stfil的币找回来了,他们也会跑得比谁都快。 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
"stfil has an accident, and I dare not renew it. I can rest assured that the money is in my hand." 〔Translated from the Chinese community Original words〕翻译自华人社区 原话:stfil 都出事了,不敢再续期了,币拿在手里放心 这是一位filecoin 算力质押者的心声!这绝对不是个例,而是很多人都有这样的想法! 不要低估stfil事件负面的影响力! This is the voice of a filecoin computing power staker! This is definitely not an isolated case, but many people have this idea! They cannot see the determination and responsibility of Filecoin official and Filecoin foundation and community to protect investors, and they cannot see the future of fil! Let me ask you: With more than 5 million FIL, filecoin FVM virtual machine, the second most important ecological damage, if not solved well, how huge the impact will be! Don't underestimate the negative impact of the stfil incident! 以下是社区提出的“冻结stfil用户的转移资产地址”989提案 “官方、核心开发者和社区表现出来的轻视和冷漠,以及不负责任”!这是造成filecoin 算力持续下降重要因素之一,表现在最近很多算力提前终止扇区,拿回质押,这一点从销毁大幅增加可以看出! The following is the 989 initiative put forward by the community to "Freeze stfil user’s transferred asset address #989" "the contempt and indifference shown by the official, core developers and the community, and the lack of regret"! It shows that a lot of computing power terminates the sector early and takes back the pledge. This can be seen from the substantial increase in theory! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
As a neutral person, if I agree, it will be more dangerous. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
FIP: #990
Currently, more than 4.5 million FIL of Stfil user assets have been transferred to “unknown addresses” - https://filfox.info/en/address/f410falck3ysg7e2k4outtq2r24ytd66cuddydnoga6a, which most likely belong to the police.
According to "customary practice" these assets will soon be sold off in the secondary market, and all investors and community members should pay attention and take action.
I propose that FF and PL should make freezing this account and formally consider how to implement it and take action!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions