ilikepilates

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished In Crypto - The Wild & Crazy Zinc Story I’ve been watching the Zinc / ZKFG situation unfold, and the more I learn, the clearer the actual story becomes. This is not about poor early investors being abandoned as some accounts try to spin the narrative. That is the FUD based on financial incentive. From the ORE community to see Zinc fail, and from secondary market folks who have a financial incentive to try to capture Zinc success only after Zinc became successful. The “investors rugged” is the version people want to spread because it lets them wear the costume of justice while chasing someone else’s upside. The real story is something much uglier. It is a story about good faith being punished. ZKLSOL raised money for an idea. The business that they raised money for was a mixer. A tornado cash for Solana, as it were. The team worked hard on it on it. Gave it their best effort. And the market did what markets do with countless startups. It said no. That is not a rug or some form of theft. That is the nature of startups in this space. Most startups fail. Most ideas do not find product-market fit. Everyone loves to say they understand that when they are buying the dream. Far fewer remember it when the dream gets punched in the mouth by reality. The founder did not just walk away as he had every legal right to do. There was a $500K refund. People who wanted out got out. Many in profit. And from what I found, the founder received no equity back. No token back. No “thank you for being a good guy” bonus. Just money out the door to make people whole because his original business concept failed and the founder is a good guy with a generous heart. That matters a lot in the current narrative. Because when people try to frame this as “Zinc rugged early investors,” they are leaving out the most important piece of history. The early investor issue was not ignored. It was addressed. Maybe not perfectly. Nothing in crypto is ever perfect. Half this industry is held together with duct tape. But there was good faith. Real good faith. Actual money. Actual exits. Actual effort to keep people from being left behind. But good faith is not the same thing as formal obligation. There was no formal investor approval of a legal pivot into Zinc. No signed addendum. No updated operating agreement. (I know, as I've read the entirety of the 20-page operating agreement) No formal contribution of Zinc IP into the original structure. No clean legal document that turned an act of goodwill into a permanent claim on whatever the team built next. This is an important context. It also highlights the absolute mess of MetaDAO as a facilitator - one would think the founders would have insisted on formalizing this to protect early investors - instead they now have put up a proposal to formalize this long after the fact, and only after Zinc’s phenomenal success. Because trying to carry people forward after a failed startup does not mean every future success becomes theirs to claim. Especially on an entirely unrelated business. So the team decided they were going to dust off a two-year old idea and build Zinc instead. Zinc started working incredibly well. It quickly became the #2 revenue generating protocol on Solana. That is when everything changed. Suddenly the room filled with people who were not there for the hard part at the beginning. They were not there when the first business failed. They were not there when the team was trying to figure out how to salvage value for investors of a failed business, when they had no legal or moral obligation to do so. They were not there when early supporters were being given a way out. But the moment Zinc showed signs of life? The moment the thing started getting attention? The moment there was blood in the water and money on the table? Here they came. Late buyers. Arb hunters. Opportunists. Like the founder of @streamflow_fi who put out the biggest piece of FUD on the topic, only later to admit that he was a late-stage arb buyer of the proposed outcome. People who did not carry the original risk, but now want to inherit the reward. And the most disgusting part is they are trying to use the language of investor protection to do it. No. Investor protection is making sure original supporters had a fair path out. Investor protection is honoring the actual process. Investor protection is respecting a passed proposal. What we are watching now is something entirely different. A passed proposal offered ZKFG holders a premium exit. It passed. The market spoke. That should mean something. Actually, it should mean everything in the theater that is "governance". The founders of MetaDAO asked for a deposit to go towards the passed proposal. That deposit was sent over two transactions: solscan.io/tx/65gNoQn1CyNgPR… solscan.io/tx/4MxZVxn1HvUhUC… Only after the deposit was sent (which is still being held hostage and not returned) did they say that they were not going to execute the passed proposal. If a decision market can approve an outcome, and then that outcome can be dismissed after the fact because someone says the format was wrong, then the market is not sovereign. Someone else is. And if money was requested to support that proposal, an address was provided, funds were sent, the proposal passed, and then the proposal was later treated as invalid while the money sits without being returned, that should concern every single person who claims to care about governance. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say a proposal is real enough to request initial funding, but not real enough to honor. That is not how trust is built. And all of this brings us to the the real lesson for builders. If you try to do what you think is right, regardless of any legal obligation to do so, someone will eventually call it an admission of liability. If you try to help early supporters when you have no requirement to do so, someone will eventually call it an obligation. If you try to salvage value from a failed idea, someone will eventually show up late and claim your future success. That is how good founders learn to grow cold. That is how this industry teaches builders to give people exactly what the paperwork requires and not a single ounce more. And then we all sit around wondering why everyone rugs, hides, ghosts, or lawyer-speaks their way through every uncomfortable situation. We created that. We reward the worst behavior, then act shocked when good behavior disappears. Zinc did not create this mess by succeeding. Zinc simply exposed it. It exposed the difference between original supporters of a completely different business who were given a path out, and late opportunists trying to turn secondary-market positioning into moral authority. It exposed whether passed proposals actually matter. It exposed whether futarchy is a real governance system or just a beautiful machine that can still be unplugged when the result gets uncomfortable for those with greed in their hearts. And it exposed something very simple: Some people did not want fairness. They wanted a claim on success, only after it became successful. They wanted to arrive after the risk, after the work, after the refund, after the failure, after the rebuild, and say: “Now that it works, we own some of that too.” That is not justice. That is greed. Honor the passed proposal. Resolve the funds. Stop pretending late buyers are abandoned early investors. And let builders build. Because if this is how we treat builders with good faith, then no one should be surprised when the next founder shows none. 🫡 From the depths — The White Whale 🐋