Discussion: What should the gitcoin community multisig do with the donated AKITA

Part of the issue i see is that “working with akita community” doesn’t just require us to do nothing, it means the gitcoin team and community now have to start working on this thing they never asked for. There are already hundreds of other projects in the web3 ecosystem which that energy could be put into supporting.

We have to ask, does akita as a project align with gitcoins aims? If we were to support akita what are we actually supporting? Has anyone read the contract code? Do we know anything about the token distribution or authors? Apparently it is a fork of shiba, so do the devs even code? Can they responsibly manage this project if it got bigger?
What are the values of the project? because it looks like a meme token intended to try and pump and make some people rich, is that what gitcoin and the community want to support? Is this the most deserving project for these funds? Or is it a big distraction that will sap a lot of time and energy?

If we were to work with the akita community I would want to see them signal their intentions by having large token holders and devs place their tokens in a vesting contract locked up for a few years. We would need to see a plan of what they are working on and importantly understand if they are capable of delivering. We treat this like an investment and it is up to akita community to prove to us that they are worthy of this investment and can deliver real value (not just money) to the wider community.

So far I am not convinced investing in akita is a better option than investing in all the other projects around that could do with the funds, the developers, the community energy. But I’d be very happy to be proven wrong, to see a clear roadmap, with beautiful intentions for society behind it, with the best developers and designers offering up their talents in support. If that doesn’t happen soon then we should just sell the tokens and carry on with our work.

1 Like

If you don’t work with AKITA community / team then you should NOT sell the token and you should return most of the tokens to AKITA community, and carry on your work.

Again, don’t think of yourself so high that you can be the judge of another project. Maybe you are doing something you think worth a thing (oh, again, “funding public goods”), you do not decide another community’s fate.


Convert them to something valuable using https://gnosis-auction.eth.link Then put it into Yearn and have all the future rounds secured by yield.

I like the idea of trying to sell at least a portion (~10%?) of the AKITA proceeds via Gnosis auctions. It should be straightforward to do. I’m in touch with the Gnosis auctions team and they’d be willing to help. The largest auction they’ve executed so far is for Boston Protocol, for which they ended up settling $26m. We will have to run multiple auctions to execute a larger trade.

Putting the proceeds of the Gnosis auction sale in a Yearn vault is an extra step - we can discuss this after completing the auction.

@Adamscochran brought up the point of being front run / sandwiched:

I think the challenge is that the simplicity, transparency and timeline here all counter act the effectiveness of the trade as the asset is so microcap that it is monopolized by bots, market makers and dark forest types.

Batch auctions enable matching of limit orders of buyers and sellers with the same clearing price for all participants. So they are designed to reduce the risk of frontrunning, gas bidding wars, and lower the amount of extracted value from auctioneers and bidders.

1 Like

How about sending back to Akita community in exchange for receiving some amount of donation (in other words, OTC trade back to Akita community)? I sort of agree with @tjayrush that it’s tainted money and no need to maximise the profit just because Gitcoin posses these tokens. Having said that Akita community made a silly decision to send it to Vitalik as a burn address which they should pay a price for it as well as the marketing exposure they received through the incident (plus wasting all stewards time which should be spending more on more meaningful discussion).


The original dev sent 50% to VB as a burn, in line with all the other dog memes back in February. Relic and the rest of the Akita community involved since that dev left have picked up the pieces of a burnt out project and actually gave it some inherent value and have tried to work towards utility beyond the original meme and build a collective resonance along the way. The people involved in Akita now did not use the VB burn as a marketing ploy, we are simply living in the ramifications of something out of our control.


I am seeing a lot of discussion around dismissing AKITA as a legit project but using the funds anyway. The result will destroy the lives of 41,000 current holders of AKITA. What kind of hypocritical message does this send from Gitcoin as a community? For a community that serves the public good are we really going to destroy another one in order to do this? The means do not justify the end in this case.
The solution is simple. Take a small percentage of the holdings and burn the rest. Release a statement corroborating this and acknowledging the AKITA community for their donation. Both Gitcoin and AKITA walk away happy.


I think the GitCoin team and people close to them do have shown they want the money badly. If nobody brings the fact that AKITA community can be (and in fact has been) destroyed, they will most likely to cash out the tokens and feed themselves for “FUNDING PUBLIC GOODS”.

The guy @relic offered 10%, obviously GitCoin wants more. They didn’t even respond to it, only talking about how they can sell the tokens to maximize their interests, because they will use it righteously to “Fund PUBLIC GOODS”.

We are living in a world if you say you “FUND PUBLIC GOODS”, you can do anything.


As soon as the narrative begins to turn to this sort of sentiment, it becomes very clear to me that the best way to make sure GitCoin does not “have blood on their hands” is for them to wash their hands of this whole issue. Send the tokens back to Vitalik–not today–not tomorrow–yesterday.

(Just to be clear, I do not agree that GitCoin will have blood on its hands no matter what decision is made – I’m making the point that the narrative is getting twisted and will only get worse.)


5% of our supply was burned on top of what was sent to Vitalik.

The way I see it is, if we stay within that 5% we can still keep a total of 50% of the supply burned as investors originally thought was the case.

Our team has been self funded this entire time. We have picked, scraped and scrounged up what we could with what we have.

I’d humbly ask that we split this 5% in a fair way, I think 3% to the stewards and 2% to the AKITA network fund would be fair.

Gitcoin recieves more because we are the hitchhikers here.

Burn the rest.

Get on with our days.

Just dont dump that 3%, help us grow as a community and you can see that 3% turn into alot more.

Memecoins are the trojan horse of the mainstream to web3.


i’m not sure, but i chat with Mike Kriak (who is our board member who represents Consensys’s interest in Gitcoin) next week + take his temperature.

Can you say more about why this is important? ( I think I know but just to hear it from you and @cupOjoseph )

1 Like

I see an element of truth in this. This is my first time coming across Gitcoin due to VB’s transfer of Akita to your multisig and I can’t help but think some of the people involved in this project have some very insidious outlooks that on paper go against the ethics of your objectives;

“Connect with the community developing digital public goods, creating financial freedom, and defining the future of the open web.”

“Open source code meets open economies. Build resilient projects, better coordination, and positive-sum outcomes.”

“Growing networks with aligned incentives towards the wellbeing of each participant and the system as a whole.”

“Through distributed funding and organizations, we build together toward our shared goals.”

To me, if ~40k holders (at the time of writing), experience severe detriment in order to fund Gitcoin’s mission, is that mission, it objectives and the means of which it carries out to achieve those objectives, genuinely consistent with how Gitcoin publicly presents itself?

I think this is quite an insightful and shrewd outlook. Money is a resource to leverage access to other tools – an audience that can be leveraged also has inherent value which produces its own ROI.


My main reasoning is that there are several exit scenarios that make investors happy, but the only scenario I like regarding Gitcoin is long-term sustainability. They may be quite excited about getting Akita tokens, whereas we seem to be divided about it.

1 Like

I think one part I do agree with is that it would be ideal to try and find a way for the Akita holders, many of whom had no idea what they were getting into, to get some benefit out of the action (such as returns from any productive asset this results in)

I’m not sure how you do that gracefully, if it is a necessary recourse or if it helps good actors at a greater rate than bad actors.

You could also airdrop half of the amount proportionally to holders which would dampen a sale effect of the remainder but still be a logistics nightmare. If you were going to do that, it could also be done on a dampened curve so it helps the little guys more than the major holders.

The situation all around sucks, and I’m not sure there is an outcome that is of perfect benefit to both parties, in fact I don’t know if there is an outcome that is perfect for either party. I think it might be just finding the ones that suck the least.


The perfect solution is the most simple one.

You found our wallet, sorry we accidentally mailed it to the wrong address! (yes I understand it was intentional albeit not by the party in question).

Thank you for finding our wallet, here is your reward. Please keep more of it than we will keep for ourselves.

BUT, it is imperative that the investors of AKITA get back to having 50% of the supply burned.

We can only do this by staying within that 5% window.

If it comes down to it, we will continue self funding and gitcoin can keep the entire 5%, just please burn the rest.

I’d love a solution where our community becomes informed about the importance of public goods funding and chooses to fund it organically without being “forced”.

That organic funding should come from this finders fee so to speak. Over time the funds can be liquidated and the AKITA community pays our way out of this mess by funding public goods.


The worst thing you could do from all angles would be to sit on the decision. So much value destruction…


It’s weird that @owocki doesn’t reply to your message. Why?

You do have a proposal, but no reply from GitCoin, not even a comment. What is GitCoin thinking?

Looks like your tokens have fallen into the hands of a mixed group of special interests, and GitCoin founder needs to consult with his BOARD MEMBERS and decide how they can deal with your funds. It looks like AKITA community does not have any priority here.

So it looks like there is a BOARD OF DIRECTORS behind the “FUNDING PUBLIC GOODS” scene. Let’s see which is more important to the board – GitCoin’s valuation, or find out a solution that actually can help AKITA community. If they can put the interest of AKITA community before themselves, I’m sure they can find a solution that would greatly benefit GitCoin as well.

1 Like

For the Akita investors as well as the Akita project team it would be just fair to leave them as much of their token supply as possible. It was supposed to be burned and gone forever and on that basis every investor took the decision to support the project.

I respect that you are willing to use gitcoin to support public needs but endangering the investment of tenthousands of small people should not be the way.


Nah, I fully trust in the gitcoin founders and their decision making ability, I’m just posting here to publicly state what I think the best solution is going forward.

They don’t owe anything to us. Not even the time they are taking away from their lives to deal with the situation, I respect the hell out of these guys for their contributions in the space.

I have 100% confidence in the situation being resolved relatively quickly with minimal drawback for either side. I actually think we will both benefit from this weird/awkward situation.


:arrow_up: This is the best comparison I’ve read in regards to this. I can’t imagine finding a wallet with money in it and keeping it knowing that it would effect the owner(s) of it in a very negative way.

Burn the rest of the tokens and accept the gracious offer made by relic. I trust the gitcoin community to do the right thing and not destroy 40,000 (mostly small investors)…we are real people from all over the world…moms, dads, college students etc.

These investors are every day people like myself…who believed in Relic and his team to take over an abandoned “memecoin” and turn it into something of value and real life use.

Why do you feel you get to decide our fate? Let our project speak for itself. I definitely wouldn’t want the bad karma on my hands if it were me in your position…please choose wisely.


This is the kind thing I’ve been wanting to see mentioned, I really appreciate thoughtful and dignified responses.

I hope some of these new folks from the AKITA community know that our Team @ Gitcoin has an entire eco-system of actual public goods projects in motion. We are running hack-a-thons, accelerator programs, and an entire bounty network that cannot be put on hold will we deal with this AKITA situation.

Secondarily no one has ever accused us of “Using Public Goods” to extract value from other communities or to harm anyone in any way. That being said we didn’t ask for this responsibility, not @owocki , not the community, not me and I will not apologize for taking our sweet time to make the right decision that protects our community and ensures that we are taking the voices of others who might be affected into consideration as well.

We have spoken with @relic and we are discussing various proposal’s as we speak. I am impressed with the fervor that you guys bring to the table trying to get this thing done, but please DON’T COME TO OUR COMMUNITY FORUM AND START TALKING SHIT ABOUT OUR FOUNDERS !!!

That’s all I will say about that.