iris tam🍜

刚刚跟 @bubblemaps 的 Founder 聊了，了解了一下事情原委。大家可以看我quoted的 文章了解一下背景，大概的情况是：我之前质疑了bmt代币为什么超过85%都在deployer手里。 I just talked to the Founder of @bubblemaps and learned about the origin of the matter. You can read my quoted article to understand the background. The general situation is: I previously questioned why more than 85% of bmt tokens are in the hands of deployer. 沟通的时候，Founder跟我表明他们这么做的目的是：1）满足跨链需求2）vesting 合约的压力测试 During the communication, the Founder showed me that the purpose of doing this was: 1) meet the cross-chain needs 2) go through stress test of the vesting contract 首先工具在Solana 拥有最多的用户，所以打算在solana发币。但是为了能够与Binance wallet & BNB Chain合作，所以需要在两边都有token。他们认为比较可实施&成本低的方式就是先在Solana mint 然后通过layerzero oft的方式到BNB Chain。现在deployer地址有757 m 的代币（占总代币量的75.7% ），408m会跨到bnb，剩下的打进vesting。 First of all, the tool has the most users in Solana, so they plan to issue tokens in solana. However, in order to cooperate with Binance wallet & BNB Chain, it is needed to deploy tokens on both sides. They think that a more implementable & low-cost way is to go to BNB Chain through Solana mint first and then through layerzero oft. Now the deployer address has 757 m tokens (accounting for 75.7% of the total amount of tokens), 408m will cross to bnb, and the rest will be entered into vesting. (Check comments below to see the tx) 其次，以确保vesting contract 能经受起同时过千次的提款/分发，他们做了压力测试，现已测试结束，deployer的代币打进了vesting contract Secondly, in order to ensure that the vesting contract can withstand more than a thousand withdrawals/distributions at the same time, they did a stress test. Now that the test is over, they had put the deployer’s tokens into the vesting contract. 这些沟通完后，从他们的角度，我是能理解操作逻辑（具体是不是必要条件，还请工程师解答，小弟尚不具备此等能力）。 After these communications, from their perspective, I can understand the operation logic (whether it is a necessary condition, please ask the engineer to answer, I don’t have this ability yet). 退一步讲，假设上述过程是在他们角度是必要操作流程，他们可能也就默认社区会拥有相同的角度，因此大咧咧的把他们的代币分布图也放在了官推，就像一些人说的“这不是自己Fud自己么”。我先前也在评论区提到他们不太像故意的，因为这样去fud 自己的操作是没必要的，更像是无心插柳柳成荫，因此有点吊诡。 To put it another way, even if the above process was part of their necessary operational procedures from their perspective, they might have assumed the community would share the same viewpoint. As a result, they casually posted their token distribution chart on their official Twitter account. As some have pointed out, "Isn’t this self-FUD?" I previously commented that this likely wasn’t intentional, as deliberately creating FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) around their own project would be counterproductive. It seems more like an unintended consequence, making the situation somewhat paradoxical. 但上述操作都是团队自己先前都没公开表明，对于社区来说，这个意味着是不透明、甚至是一种可能随时要跑路的情况，因此在表达了观点并进行一轮沟通后，项目方认可了我的建议：将上述事情公开，以服大众。 However, since the team had never publicly clarified these actions beforehand, the community perceived them as opaque—even raising suspicions of a potential exit scam. After sharing my perspective and engaging in discussions, the project team acknowledged my suggestion to publicly address these concerns, which was crucial for maintaining trust. 现在很高兴看到团队愿意出来澄清，我也会持续关注后续他们产品的进展，毕竟链上侦探这个叙事在bybit 以及其他资金被盗事件后，需求是在增长的。 tag some frd who might care: @jeremybtc @SolPuo @Overdose_AI