[Proposal - Akita] Return AKITA tokens to its source


@ceresstation suggested that we split our discussion on how to use Vitalik’s Akita donation into proposals.


Return all AKITA tokens to their source (Vitalik’s sending address) making either an explicit or implicit message that these tokens were sent to the GitCoin multisig address in error.

Open questions


  • My first concern is that by “accepting” the receipt of these tokens, the GitCoin Mutlisig holders take on unwanted social and (potentially) financial liabilities. I leave it to the community to better define what “liabilities” means. The point is that the liabilities of accepting the tokens outweighs the benefits.
  • Since the tokens first appeared, the conversation about them has taken on an expected, but completely unwanted, negative tone. The AKITA token holder community seems to think GitCoin owes them something (social liability). By returning the tokens both the negativity and any sense of a responsibility relative to the AKITA community is removed.
  • The longer it takes to make a decision vis-a-vi these tokens, the worse the situation becomes. In the hope that the GitCoin community quickly return the focus its limited resources to its primary mission, resolving this as quickly as possible is best.
  • The long term outcome of succumbing to the un-invited demands of the AKITA community will cause other new tokens to follow their lead. If we legitimize AKITA, other tokens will seek similar legitimization. The action we take is precedent setting. The GitCoin community does not want similar situations to happen in the future. Doing anything other than simply washing its hands, will lead to many future examples of tokens seeking legitimacy through GitCoin. As a result, GitCoin’s legitimacy will be diminished.

Not Proposed

The following two things are specifically NOT being proposed. If anyone wishes to do any of the below, they should create their own proposal.

  • I am not proposing that the tokens be burned.
  • I am not proposing that the GitCoin multisig singers should send the tokens anywhere other than Vitalik’s original sending address.

Return all AKITA tokens to their source (Vitalik’s sending address) making either an explicit or implicit message that these tokens were sent to the GitCoin multisig address in error.

I’m unsure how it could be interpreted as an error when we have screenshots of Vitalik telling us the intent of the donation.


I’m not sure either, but I think it’s an important part of the proposal. I put it there on purpose to elicit debate. That’s why I included the word “implicit” in the proposal.

1 Like

First, my apologies for miss-reading you in the monster thread @tjayrush. It’s because I agree with everything you say about the expected turn, the liability to the community and multisig signers, and the distraction these tokens are causing.

Let me state my slight counter proposal more clearly.

Burn all the tokens by sending them to 0x0.

My reasoning is twofold:

  1. Julian is right - these were not sent in error.
  2. There is a contradiction in what has been said in the other threads. Despite my respect for Adam and others, we cannot say “this token has no real value, therefore we should sell it (in whatever way)”. This does not compute for me.

If the history of a project suggests there is no real value to their token, then we should act in line with that assessment, and simply burn that which can only be a burden on Gitcoin. Ironically, this kind of principled action - an assertion of communal belief about what ‘value’ actually entails in web3 projects - simultaneously creates and secures the economic gain for which the AKITA “community” is calling. I literally cannot think of a better, lived example of what it means to walk the Middle Way.

Blockchains enable the deterministic execution of performative speech. Saying “we don’t think these tokens are actually worth anything”, while simultaneously acting it out is precisely the kind of principled speech-action which might, one day, make these quadratic lands truly sustainable, viable and vibrant.

Oh, it also saves us from having to decide who controls whatever “value” we extract from any sale, who is liable if anything goes wrong, etc etc - which is the most incredible amount of admin and the least interesting work we could possibly be doing.


I’m not sure what your opinion about selling Akita has to do with your respect for me. (Maybe there’s another Adam–I didn’t read every post. If you want to refer to someone specifically, you could tag them with @ ).

If you have your own proposal (it sounds like you’re proposing to burn 100%), you should create your own topic. This topic is about the proposal to send the Akita back to Vitalik.


I believe he means Adam S Cochran, who was active earlier in the monster thread.


I don’t know that burning all the tokens is the right play, I think a mix between burning some (to preserve price) and selling others could really help fund the development of many new dApps and boost the community as a whole

1 Like

This kind of sense making is really cut’s through the noise around here, if you create a proposal to this effect in the #governance-proposals thread we can add it to the vote that is coming online soon @cryptowanderer !


When should we all expect a vote? And how would we be notified of that? Thanks

1 Like

My gut feeling is ‘sending it back shows gitcoin is not willing to made a decision’.

As we are not in a rush to make a decision, it is not a strategic decision too. so maybe leave the token where it is for the next months or 2/3 years. If it worth nothing then, we don’t need to vote.

DeeL translated:

我的直觉是 “把它送回去表明吉特币不愿意做出决定”。


1 Like

The decision to not make a decision is exactly the point of the proposal.

It’s my opinion, as I stated in the proposal, that making a decision has more downsides than upsides (certainly socially due to fact that we would be using GitCoin’s imprimatur to legitimize Akita which will invite future episodes from equally unwelcome token communities, and possibly economically depending on tax consequences).

I also don’t think we have the luxury of time depending on how allowing the decision to cross a year-end boundary affects the economic consequences.

This proposal has nothing to do with burning tokens.

1 Like

Anybody think maybe Gitcoin can’t access the coins sent to the address ? Also, does Gitcoin have to pay the transaction fee to send the coins ? Ethereum gas fees are high and that doesn’t seem fair that they have to pay for something they had no control of. Mistakes happen I think the Akita community should put it past them and focus on the future of their project :man_shrugging:

1 Like

This proposal has nothing to do with burning tokens.

1 Like

See my reply on other thread, also can we not create so many threads for the same topic already?

I disagree with this proposal as it goes against gitcoin’s mission to fund opensource by sending it back to VB. Plus it can open a game of back and forth if VB is in a mood.


Can you address the potential social and possible financial liabilities?

1 Like

Hey Thomas. What liabilities are you referring to?

The social liabilities are the unpleasant nature of the AKITA community and the future where, if AKITA is allowed to do what they’re doing – trying to get legitimacy from GitCoin – Gitcoin will be flooded with copy cats.

The potential financial liability is how this income would effect taxes, as I don’t think GitCoin is a tax exempt org, and therefor someone has to declare this as income. If the tokens aren’t handled properly, I would be worried about tax liability.


The AKITA community is irrelevant to this. It’s just a meme coin. Naturally I don’t want us to hurt it by a severe liquidation which is why I voted for the 10/90%

That’s a valid concern, but that’s for Gitcoin to answer. @owocki ?
I would assume since the money is not going to the gitcoin’s org pocket but the multisig only the org is not affected but IANAL.