Ok, it’s time I say my piece.
I’ve wanted to speak up for a long time, but held back for a few reasons:
- I’m genuinely sick of all the bullshit and the noise that never had to exist in the first place.
- I kept hoping people would come to their senses and rein in the “stray dogs in the backyard.”
- I expected we’d get clearer facts and a real plan forward from the Shib side.
- I have friends with large SHIB-ecosystem bags, and I didn’t want to make things worse for them unnecessarily.
But instead of improving, things have escalated. More attacks, more mud-slinging, and more narratives about K9 Finance DAO, its developers, and community members. And when that kind of behavior is amplified by accounts that present themselves as “official” or “public-facing,” it becomes unacceptable. This cannot be the standard.
Where I’m coming from
I’ve been following SHIB since 2021, on and off, and I’ve been very active again since 2023.
When I was introduced to K9 Finance DAO through SHIB, I was honestly excited, it felt like exactly the kind of infrastructure Shibarium needed, and something worth supporting. I’ve spent years as an MMO gamer, and when my group took a break, I redirected all my free time into K9 and the broader Shibarium effort. I tried to act as a bridge-builder when friction started showing up between K9 and parts of the Shib ecosystem.
Over time, that got harder. The public conversation became more combative, while concrete evidence and clear accountability felt harder to find.
Two facts we should not downplay
Whether people like it or not, two serious incidents have weighed heavily on trust:
1) The Shibarium bridge exploit (September 2025)
This was not “drama,” and it was not a minor event. Official technical updates described an incident where unauthorized validator signing power was used to push a malicious state/exit through the PoS bridge, enabling withdrawals of multiple assets. The same updates also acknowledged key-management issues and decentralization shortcomings, and laid out hardening phases, key rotation, custody improvements, and a future postmortem/remediation process.
2) The LEASH supply incident (August 2025)
An official investigation described how LEASH supply increased around ~10% on August 11, 2025 (≈107,646 → 118,411), despite years of messaging that rebasing was disabled and supply was fixed. The investigation explained how a “renounced” setup can still retain functional control paths, and it outlined governance-led options (including a v2 path).
If we want credibility, we cannot pretend these were small issues, or dismiss people who are demanding clarity.
My view on what should have happened with K9 / Bonecrusher
It’s still hard for me to understand why there wasn’t a full, coordinated push to promote real usage and liquidity on Shibarium through products like Bonecrusher and knBONE. I’m not going to speculate on motives. I’ll just say this: from a purely logical standpoint, driving actual on-chain utility should have been the obvious priority.
What I believe must be true for K9 to remain a “Shibarium project”
K9’s recent statement about “defining the path forward” was, in my opinion, far too mild, so I’m going to say this more clearly.
If K9 Finance DAO is expected to continue with Shibarium as a serious long-term commitment, then (at minimum) the community deserves all of the following:
-
A verifiable remediation plan for exploit-affected users
Not vibes. Not “TBD forever.” A concrete, auditable framework: who is affected, what assets, what methodology, what timeline, and how it will be verified. -
An end to public-facing FUD and unsubstantiated accusations
If anyone is making claims about K9, its developers, partners, or community members, then the standard must be evidence. Links. Transaction hashes. Documentation. Otherwise it’s just noise that damages the entire ecosystem. -
Clear documentation of validator decentralization and custody controls
Not slogans. A straightforward explanation of:
- how validator signing keys are stored and protected now,
- what has changed since the incident,
- what multi-party controls exist, and
- how the ecosystem prevents “single-person” control over critical actions.
- Clear documentation of chain upgrade authority and governance
Who can push upgrades? Under what constraints? What multisig/timelock structure exists? What prevents unilateral changes? What transparency commitments are in place?
Where I stand now
Personally, I struggle to see a healthy path forward with Validator Staking | Shib.io leadership as it has operated recently. Too many bridges have been burned.
I supported the builders when the Shib ecosystem went through earlier internal conflicts because I want to back people who ship, build and try to create something real for the community. Now it feels like we’re at another decision point, especially when there’s still lingering confusion around two critical events (the LEASH supply incident and the bridge exploit), while the public conversation keeps getting dirtier instead of clearer.
Was it “just a small hack,” as some people tried to frame it?
No. And treating it that way is exactly how ecosystems lose serious builders and serious users.
My choice is straightforward: I support K9 Finance DAO, its developers, and the community members who kept building while others focused on narratives.
I’ve met a lot of good people through SHIB, and I’m grateful for that. But what has piled up over the last year has gone completely off the rails. For me, this is the point where I have to say: thanks for the journey, and goodbye (not to K9).
Questions for the community
- What would you personally require to rebuild trust between K9 and the Shibarium side?
- What minimum standard of evidence should apply when public accusations are made?
- If Shibarium governance and custody are truly improving, what documentation would prove it in a way that’s credible to builders?