BavarianGodWhale

Everybody keeps calling this "bot activity." It isn't. On-chain, the PulseChain fork-cluster is one coordinated hand — and it just proved it holds the root key. @NineIronCapital

Two questions with very different answers. Technically: partially, and one half is permanently gone. Legally: I’m not a lawyer, and the word “authorised” is doing more work than it looks. Technically Route A is dead forever. Vat.cage() sets live = 0 and there is no uncage. live is set to 1 in the constructor and never again. The Vat is not behind a proxy — no admin, no implementation slot, nothing to swap. No governance action, no ward, no spell reverses it. frob is gone permanently. Route B may be merely unstarted. End.live = 1, so End.cage() hasn’t run. The ES path is designed to work on a caged Vat — grab, slip, flux have no live check, only frob does. So the machinery could in principle still fire. It’s gated on a chain of requires nobody has read on your node: SEE PHOTOS Who counts as “authorised” On a fork, nobody — in the sense the word usually carries. MakerDAO’s mainnet MKR holders have zero authority over chain 369. “Authorised” reduces to whoever satisfies the fork’s own auth checks, which is a fact about storage, not legitimacy: •MCD_ESM — burn min forked MKR (150k on mainnet), then fire(). Effectively permissionless if you hold forked MKR. •MCD_PAUSE_PROXY ← MCD_PAUSE ← DSChief — whoever’s forked MKR lifts the hat plots a spell. Both bottom out in forked MKR, which is inherited supply on a chain where you’ve documented fabrication elsewhere. So “authorised governance” here means “whoever accumulated enough forked MKR” — which is exactly the capture question your investigation has been circling, not an independent authority. The premise I’d push back on Your question says “redemption path from a backed pDAI token to the underlying collateral.” Even a fully working Route B doesn’t deliver what that implies. End.cash → GemJoin.exit hands you the fork’s wstETH — and per your own census, WSTETH-A/B and RETH-A collateral is 97% fork-minted. You’d redeem a fork token for a fork token. The debt − vice = 20.96bn figure means “the Vat’s ledger records collateral against this debt.” It does not mean “20.96bn of recoverable value.” Those are different claims and the report should never let them touch. The ~15.3bn on ETH-A is inherited copies; the ~1.02bn on WSTETH-A/B is fabricated. Same ledger, very different provenance. Legally Not a lawyer, and this is genuinely unsettled rather than me being cautious. The factual pieces you’d hand one: the contracts are copies with no relationship to MakerDAO; the tokens are fork assets; the actors are pseudonymous; jurisdiction is unclear. Whether exercising fork governance over fork assets is lawful, tortious, or nothing at all depends on facts I can’t supply. Worth asking someone who does securities/commodities work — and worth noting your report is stronger if it stays on mechanism and declines the legal question entirely.