Chain Vote: Where Should the Stolen 25% KNINE Be Minted?

This forum post has one clear purpose: to ask the community which chain they want the stolen 25% KNINE minted on, following the passage of Option 5.

Before getting to the vote itself, it’s important to ground this discussion in what Option 5 passing functionally means for the community and what it does not mean.

Option 5 has the K9 developers working on a two-phased approach to execute the details of option 5.

  1. Phase 1: Shut down Shibarium operations to save costs
  2. Phase 2: Mint the hacked KNINE on a new chain

Simultaneous to that multi-month effort, the DAO community may propose next steps for K9 DAO to pursue.


Why Option 5 Passed

Option 5 was a vote that recognized that the Shib team was responsible for the Shibarium bridge hack due to improper security practices and that there is not a belief in the Shib Owes You (SOU) system of on-chain debt acknowledgement being proposed.

It was recognition that K9 DAO as a whole is unwilling to make debt payments to Shib… To pay back its own holders who were impacted the most.

The SOU program is an on-chain acknowledgement that Shib does not have the money to repay K9 users, so the K9 DAO needed to act outside of that to help its users.

K9 users are STILL owed from Shiba Inu despite the DAO voting to do its own recovery efforts simultaneously to the SOU efforts.


What Option 5 Was — and Was Not

Option 5 was not a vote to:

  • Launch liquid staking on another chain

  • Create a new roadmap

  • Expand K9 DAO into new ecosystems

Option 5 was a vote to:

  • Shut down the product on Shibarium

  • Mint replacement KNINE on another chain for affected users

  • Preserve the treasury and cut costs

K9 DAO is, and always has been, a liquid staking product for Shibarium. While the litepaper mentions the possibility of future expansion, that assumption was always tied to Shibarium being profitable.

The dev team is not being asked to “figure out what’s next.” They are being asked to execute exactly what was voted for — and that work alone is complex and will take months.

Specifically:

  • Shutting down Bonecrusher

  • Minting the stolen KNINE on a new chain

There are hundreds of individual steps required just to do those two things correctly.


An Important Acknowledgement

This recovery path is only possible because K9’s developers were able to stop the hacker.

Using the blacklist functionality, the team prevented further damage and preserved the ability for the DAO to execute a controlled recovery. Without that intervention, there would be no stolen supply to re-mint and no realistic recovery option to vote on.

That effort is the reason this chain vote exists at all.


The Chain Vote

As part of executing Option 5, the community must now decide which chain the stolen 23% KNINE should be minted on.

Based on feasibility, infrastructure, and current discussions, the Roundtable is proposing two options:

  • BNB

  • Base

These are the only options being put forward at this time. If you would like to propose an additional chain you may comment your suggestion in this forum proposal and it will be reviewed by the community for potential inclusion in the vote.

If no additional chains are formally proposed with rationale and support, the vote will proceed between BNB and Base.

This vote is only about where the stolen supply is minted.
It does not imply:

  • A new product launch

  • Liquid staking on the chosen chain

  • A new roadmap

Those would require separate proposals, budgets, and execution plans from the community.


What Happens Next

Right now, the priority is simple:

  • Execute the recovery the community voted for

  • Shut down Shibarium operations cleanly

  • Reduce costs and preserve runway

If there is a “what’s next” beyond that, it must come from the community in the form of:

  • A concrete idea

  • A real roadmap

  • A budget

  • A plan to execute

The DAO is open to proposals — but they need to be actionable.


9 Likes

Base would be my opinion. It’s easy to access through Coinbase, high liquidity and userbase, and plenty of opportunity to attempt to create revenue with dapps and mini-apps (future proposals).

KNINE’s home chain is ETH, which is easy to bridge back and forth to and from Base.

Lastely, all Base tokens are listed by default, so no applications or back and forth around getting the token whitelisted to swap with.

9 Likes

It was my belief that BNB and Base chains were merely options. It’s my opinion that if our intent is to build on a different chain the minting should take place On a chain where we would want to build or there is a possibility of our success. The Avalanche chain Or Polygon chain would be other very favorable options. What data have we analyzed besides volume and liquidity that make Base and BNB the The most favorable chains.. Being hasty in what chain we mint on may be a costly decision.

I’m an advocate for the Avalanche chain here is why

  1. Top five growing chains
  2. EVM compatible
  3. Scalable for builders
  4. Lower cost for Operating validators
  5. Fast transaction speeds
  6. Low cost transaction fees
  7. Can handle large volume of transactions
  8. Strong security
  9. Vibrant community
  10. #6 In Liquidity and trading volume
  11. More opportunity to beat the competition
  12. Grants and incentives for builders
  13. Considered US based blockchain
  14. CCIP compatibale
6 Likes

I’ve been experimenting with how we organize chain research for the post-incident direction and the current “where should minting happen” discussion.

I initially tried make a chain discussion in Discord, but I think it’s still too hard for the average user to follow (too many channels, too much context switching, and it’s easy to miss the key points). So instead, I built a simple web page in the same style as the K9 vote page, aimed at making chain evaluation more “consumer-friendly” and easier to reference in governance discussions:

K9 Multichain (Chain Profiles):
https://shibarium-incident.info/ui/k9multichain

What this page is trying to do:

  • Give a plain-language overview of each chain we’re considering.
  • Highlight the “no-go” factors early (e.g., whether something is EVM vs non-EVM, L1 vs L2, whether “validator staking” is even a real concept on that chain, and what the real trade-offs are).
  • Keep things organized and comparable, so we can make decisions based on facts and analysis, not vibes.

Important note: this is a starting point. Right now, a lot of sections are still light, and some of the “live metrics” are directional only.

What I need from the community:

  • If you have strong sources (official docs, reputable research, dashboards) for any chain on the list, especially around security model, staking/validator realities, bridge assumptions, DeFi depth/integrations, please post them here or on Telegram.
  • If you spot anything incorrect or misleading, call it out. I’ll fix it quickly.
  • If you think a chain should be added/removed from the shortlist, explain why (with sources if possible).

Goal: build a shared reference that helps the DAO filter out bad options early, focus discussion on realistic paths, and support a decision that we can defend with evidence.

5 Likes

I would choose base between these 2 chains.

6 Likes

Appreciate this information. I would be on board with Base myself. Makes sense to me as KNINE is already on ETH.

1 Like

I would choose base but also suggest adding Avalanche as an option to be voted on as well.

I would be onboard with Base myself.

1 Like

I’ve been thinking about what each chain is inherently good at and how it can benefit K9…

I keep on going back to Arbitrum.

  • vs. Base: Arbitrum has a larger, more mature DeFi ecosystem and stronger grant support.

  • vs. BNB: Arbitrum is less centralized and more trusted in the crypto community, aligning better with K9’s reputation.

  • vs. Avalanche: Arbitrum offers deeper liquidity and greater institutional credibility, supporting revenue generation and transparent governance.

More Arbitrum notes on Seizan’s proposal: Proposal: Migrate K9 Finance DAO to Arbitrum (Settlement + Treasury) and Relaunch with Yield Vaults + DAO-Owned Liquidity Tooling

Still lots of homework to do.

2 Likes

This is the type of discussion we should having… Why we would want mint on a chain. Pros and Cons. Someone said the other day they had lost money with AVAX due to depreciation .. What does that have to do with the chain.. Lots of money has been lost on ETH does that make it a bad chain to build on? I want to hear why and why not. I put up a post the other day on why avalanche this is the first post I have seen as to why another chain would be more preferable.

1 Like

My vote is Base, at risk of repeating a lot of the opinions above, my key thoughts are
-EVM support structure
-Professional Chain, I believe will have longevity
-Funded Chain, things on it will…you know…work.
-Some of the easiest onboarding of any chain due to their route with Coinbase.

2 Likes

Tbh I think Base, BNB, Polygon, Avalanche, and Arbitrum can all be viable options.

For me, the main question isn’t just “where can we mint the 23%,” but “where does it make the most sense to actually build and relaunch.” That includes things like onboarding support, ecosystem fit, and the likelihood of getting meaningful grants and partnerships that help K9 grow beyond the initial fix.

That’s why I put together the Arbitrum proposal yesterday. Not saying the other chains don’t have comparable support, I’m sure some do, I just haven’t found (or verified) the same level of relevant onboarding/grant pathways yet. If anyone has solid links/programs for Base/BNB/Polygon/Avalanche that are a good match for what K9 is trying to do, please share them here so we can compare properly.

1 Like

Its interesting to me how Base is getting so much support. Is it a chain we would pursue building on?
Should we decide an LSD platform is what we want. It’s not happening there. Buzz once showed concerns about it due to its validator process and centralization. It’s easy onboarding and off ramping and ease of use are some big pluses..lol

1 Like

keep this in mind

this decision is not the same as deciding IF and WHERE to develop any new products.

This decision is about where to make affected users whole.

I suggest choosing a chain where people can easily buy and sell as they see fit.

1 Like

I agree with the general point that Base and BNB are easy chains for users, fees are low and liquidity is strong. That said, I don’t think it’s accurate to imply that alternatives like Arbitrum, Polygon, or Avalanche are meaningfully harder for users to buy/sell on. They all have meaningful stablecoin rails and active DEX markets.

  • BNB Chain: ~$13.3B stablecoins and ~$1.7B DEX volume (24h).
  • Base: ~$5.1B stablecoins and ~$1.3B DEX volume (24h).
  • Arbitrum: ~$4.1B stablecoins and ~$376M DEX volume (24h).
  • Polygon PoS: ~$3.1B stablecoins and ~$211M DEX volume (24h).
  • Avalanche: ~$1.7B stablecoins and ~$134M DEX volume (24h).

My bigger concern is strategic: if we mint the missing 23% supply and move treasury to Chain A, but later decide the best place to build products is Chain B, we’ve created a second migration problem, extra time, extra cost (liquidity rebuild, integrations, comms), and higher execution risk.

Also, from a practical standpoint, it’s usually easier to justify and obtain ecosystem support (grants, audit programs, BD help) (no proof of this, just how i think of it)when you’re actually committing to build and generate activity on the chain you’re asking support from, versus treating it as a temporary settlement chain.

So I think the key question is: what’s the plan behind picking Base/BNB?

  • If the idea is “move there first and hope the chain alone drives enough trading volume to rebuild treasury from tax income for development,” I’m not convinced that’s the most reliable strategy. Take for example, for ppl on Base/BNB, why would they want to buy KNINE?
  • In my view, the more sustainable way to generate volume and fees is to build, product utility tends to create stickier activity than “being on Chain X.”

Imo, the DAO should think more than one move ahead. I’m not arguing that we “build first,” but that we migrate to the chain that is most likely to be our long-term build home, where we can ship products, earn revenue, and realistically access ecosystem support (grants, audit programs, partnerships) to accelerate delivery

3 Likes

How many times does it have to be said that we don’t have the roadway to build another LS platform?

Bone Crusher was the dream product and it was built. It worked, but it was never profitable and we are down a ton of money. We. Cannot. Build. An. LS. Platform. In our current state of funds.

Grants are not guaranteed. We can release many different utilities for less cost than a liquid staking platform to create revenue.

Revenue is what it comes down to ensure the Treasury grows so we can, MAYBE, look into an LS platform in the future.

If you (all) keep thinking of K9 Finance as only a liquid staking provider, you’re going to watch the Treasury die.

2 Likes

I can agree and it has been made clear.. Not enough Treasury to build and operate an LSD platform. My concerns around base (which seems to be the leader)
Is that where we want to build. Creating revenue for the treasury has to be one of the next steps. Is base the best place for that to happen? Just my opinion base is the best place to mint and sell not mint and build.Again I’m not a builder so builder input is accepted.

@RoundTableOfDogs

Could we publish a simple “K9 DAO Current State” snapshot so everyone has the same baseline?

Things that would be helpful to disclose:

  1. Treasury overview (high level)
  • Total treasury value (approx.) and asset breakdown (stablecoins / ETH / other)
  • Split by what’s readily available vs. deployed/illiquid (e.g., funds in LP positions, staked/locked assets, vesting/escrow, protocol-owned liquidity)
  • Where funds are held (chains + custody type)
  1. DAO-controlled wallets
  • List of official treasury / multisig addresses (and which are active)
  • Any known restricted/locked funds or funds not currently accessible
  1. Monthly burn / expenses
  • Current monthly operating costs
  • Which costs are expected after Shibarium shutdown
  • Any costs that will remain regardless of chain
  1. Revenue (current)
  • Current recurring revenue sources (if any)
  • Approx. monthly inflows/outflows over the last few months (even in ranges)
  1. Estimated cost to execute the migration/settlement
  • A rough estimate for migration + mint/claims on the new chain (engineering + security review/audit + operational setup)
  • Any optional costs (liquidity incentives, gas sponsorship, etc.)

Not asking for anything sensitive, just enough transparency so the community understands our runway and constraints before we discuss next steps.

1 Like

BASE seems like a winner for me. If this is Binance platform.. I don’t think we can use it in Texas.

Look and research all the options…not just 2..