What you wrote has nothing to do with what you are presenting …filling out an SEC complaint form doesn’t give someone expertise in U.S. bankruptcy law or standing to act on behalf of anyone.
The SEC enforces securities laws, it doesn’t control or approve asset recoveries in bankruptcy fgs.
Your reply demonstrates a lack of understanding and conflates unrelated issues.
Confidence dear Morty does not equal correctness.
Okay, let me be honest here.
The wallet that received the ETH initially on the Ethereum side is mentioned in the Exhibit of the court documents (originally PEG defending bot). Furthermore, the judgement said (from what I remember) that only the terra assets (LUNA, LUNC, USTC) are to be burnt, everything else is to be handled by the bankruptcy estate, maybe even used for debtor settlement.
So I, personally, would assume that this migration was ordered and executed similarly to the burning of bridge assets (shuttle). So a query to the court or proper entity would maybe be better first, before treating it as a “theft”.
That said, if it is clarified that Terra Classic as a chain is the rightful owner of these funds (which I doubt due to above reasons), I have no issue with the recoverers taking that kind of finder’s fee in case of successful recovery. But until it has been confirmed that these funds are “free”, so not tied to the bankruptcy settlement and similar, I can not consent.
The fact that this went in time with the wormhole closing down, makes absolutely sense.
Moving the funds off-chain is a logical step to avoid them being indefinitely locked and inaccessible due to a shut-down bridge. A further hint to this kind of action is the usage of grant/authz, which would not have been necessary, unless the wallet owner is either not allowed to act himself or doesn’t have the technical knowledge for this action.
, we are claiming an exploit and not a wallet. We want the funds. If I steal from you and send it to my wallet I will still be a thief. The wallet is linked because it is an ethereum wallet in their possession. The token was converted by Beth lenders who borrowed USTC. It was the asset that collateralized the USTC and they stole it and converted it into webeth to send it through a wormhole and convert it into STETH. They did not own the USTC that had been borrowed, the admin wallet (granter) simply made an authz to the (grantee) so that they could empty the funds.
The purpose of the admin wallet in a smart contract is always to change parameters if a governance proposal is approved. Never withdraw decentralized funds; that is considered an exploit, misappropriation, theft, or whatever you want to call it.
In fact, it first goes through the anchor vault wallet (this is always the case) and then sends it to that wallet converted into Ethereum. A smart contract can have an admin and an owner, but if it’s a decentralized protocol, the funds will also be decentralized.
Mort, your assumptions aren’t based on verified facts.
The wallet is referenced in the bankruptcy filings, meaning they’re likely under court control. Until the trustee or court confirms ownership, no one has authority to move or “recover” those funds.
Acting outside that process could breach the bankruptcy stay, trigger legal consequences, and cause serious reputational and regulatory damage to the entire Classic community.
Mishandling this could very likely prompt the bankruptcy court to intervene, potentially ordering freezes or restrictions that impact network participants, validators, or any entity seen as benefiting from disputed assets …
You need to do this the right way and ensure there are no legal repercussions and your presumptions are actually correct and factual.
This action came in light of the wormhole closing down. So it may as well be that they wanted (or even were ordered to) secure the funds as they would have been indefinitely stuck after wormhole closing.
From my pov you are making assumptions and need clarifications first.
I no longer know if you’re uncomfortable or simply laughing at me. But I’ll explain it one more time. In May 2022, the anchor functions were disabled, making it impossible for lenders and borrowers to carry out transactions, but administrator rights weren’t relinquished. This gives you all the time in the world to create an exploit. The closure of the wormhole is the event that precipitates the exploit. Investors were already helpless, and the smart contract admin drained the funds. If this is an assumption and not outright fraud, then you tell me what it is. If you want to vote no or veto the proposal, that’s your right, but I’m not going to waste any more time, and I’d rather lose the 5 million lunc.
The goal is to recover the funds and have them relinquish their admin rights. It’s the validator’s job to protect the blockchain and the investor, and that’s why we’re asking for your support. If you don’t want to, that’s fine. If this proposal is complete garbage and makes no sense, that’s fine too. That’s what governance is for.
What’s the problem, Wormhole? Are the TFL-related wallets involved in the trial? TFL? We’re going after whoever stole the funds from the admin wallet. Those funds that were left untouched were stolen by the admin. I’m not making any assumptions; you have the transaction and bytecode for an exploit, and that’s undeniable.
Mort, none of this changes the legal reality.
Whether or not you believe an exploit occurred, a wallet in question is referenced in the bankruptcy case. That would make this subject to court authority, not community governance.
Pushing actions based on unverified assumptions or moral arguments could draw direct court attention, trigger asset freezes, and expose validators or community wallets to legal orders.
The risks of not doing proper due diligence and process are far more than the funds you’re trying to “recover.”
I am unsure why you think people are personally attacking you when they are recommending due process to ensure there are no legal repercussions…
Si With Burrito… 
, now let it be known and thus spake… To Victory!!!
Interesting… can’t wait, it’s super neato how everyone is paying witness…
a.) Even in case there was unjustified removal of funds from the contract, the ones that owned those funds would not be the chain itself, but the ones that had put the tokens in there.
b.) The funds in that contract where webETH collected from conversions to Anchor assets. So you could argue they were collateral for anchor users, which most likely would make them part of the bankruptcy and crash handling.
c.) There was no “exploit” or “exploit bytecode”. It was a standard migration by the contract admin. As wormhole was about to close down, you could as well argue that this migration saved the funds from being worthlessly frozen on chain for an unforeseeable time due to wormhole shutdown to Classic. So the first step: approach the ones in charge of the admin wallet, which ofc is TFL or after the bankruptcy most likely the estate or court.
d.) imho the chain gov cannot agree on a “finders fee” on behalf of potential rightful owners of the funds
And, just in case that you didn’t go that far in the research, here are the holders/“rightful owners” of the balance that was withdrawn. Anchor ETH balances - Google Sheets
So if someone would own the funds, it would be mostly the top wallets in there.
The first address is the borrowing contract, so that balance needs to be further divided into those that put in collateral. So here it is, and as you can see the balance matches the contract balance. Borrowing - Google Sheets
None of what you’re saying works that way; you’re completely wrong. Decentralization and the return of crypto assets have nothing to do with what you’re saying. You’re just diverting attention and complicating something that’s much simpler. In any case, I’m going to request a review of the case; it’s an investor’s right and strictly confidential, so you’re only objecting to the community multi-signature not receiving the funds and them being returned to a dead wallet.
You also say that Ethereum couldn’t be claimed, but that’s a completely different matter. You also mention liquid staking derivatives, which are collateral for a lending protocol but are actually Ethereum deposited as Beth on Luna Classic. These are contracts between Anchor, Lido, and the Bridge Wormhole, but this is also irrelevant to the proposal. Regardless of the specific liquid staking derivative, they all belong to Anchor, a native protocol of Luna Classic.
Here you can check if Ethereum was claimable, and it was only claimable because there were Ethereum smart contracts with a Terra Classic address belonging to Beth and Webeth, both TfL products. There are many claimable tokens. Terraform Labs Crypto Loss Claims Portal Launch | by Terra | Terra | Medium
In my opinion, the big hint that this movement of funds was most likely ordered by the bankruptcy court or trustee is that the funds were sent to a TFL ethereum wallet that is listed in the court exhibit and under the control of the trustee. If this was an “exploit” by a nefarious third party, it seems highly unlikely that they woud a) send the “misappropriated” funds to a wallet that is under court supervision (0x6b671B51258dB0316Dd89BC0075D6113488Be5E8), and b) have access to the private key/seed phrase of that wallet such that they could then transfer the funds to a subsequent wallet (0xd4bFbDBe591f28bEBEC03A21C8a70afd08b35E5F).