Wake up Guardian,

https://aftermint.trade/collection/0xaE51dc5fD1499A129f8654963560f9340773ad59/mint

ℹ️ If you have issues minting read this below.

hello frens, we'd like to address the current state of things with the context and nuance it deserves, and share updates on how things can work going forward.

EDIT: feel free to scroll down after the updates to read the follow-on discussion, questions, and answers.

PART 1:

on the recent halving concerns:

the estimates circulating last week were based on community calculations rather than an authoritative on-chain schedule, so the absence of a halving event by itself should not automatically be treated as proof of malfunction. however, that is not the core issue.

the deeper problem is that at this stage of the network’s lifecycle, the emissions schedule should be transparent, deterministic, and clearly communicated. if the schedule has changed from what was originally outlined in the whitepaper, that change should have been disclosed. the fact that block estimates have to be reverse-engineered at all, one year after mainnet, reflects a broader lack of clarity and communication that can no longer be ignored.

on community frustration and delivery:

it is evident that the community has reached a breaking point. for the better part of a year (including very recently) we have received repeated assurances from members of the Based Labs team that key components of the network were “nearly finished.” time and again, those expectations have not been met with deliverables.

the halving presented an opportunity to demonstrate that even foundational protocol mechanics were operating as expected. the inability to clearly demonstrate or communicate this has become a necessary catalyst for action. it is a reflection of the extraordinary amount of goodwill the community has already extended.

PART 2:

on why action is now required:

the absence of clarity around something as fundamental as emissions one year post-mainnet signals a crossroads. continuing to wait without contingency planning would only prolong stagnation. moving forward requires parallel paths, not abandonment.

on how we plan to move forward:

for some time now, we have been researching, ideating, and testing parallel avenues for the ecosystem to continue progressing without precluding delivery by Based Labs. in consultation with builders within the Based community, the consensus has been to establish an initiative that:

- incorporates and respects the existing Based ecosystem,

- does not compete with Based or interfere with its eventual delivery,

- runs in parallel rather than replacing it,

- accounts for those who participated in Based (such those who acquired Brains).

most importantly however, this does not absolve Based Labs of their delivery obligations. those obligations remain intact. our intention is to preserve accountability while ensuring the ecosystem itself is not frozen in place. if both paths ultimately succeed, the ecosystem benefits twice.

PART 3:

on our expectations/intervention:

building Pepecoin has always been, and remains, our primary responsibility. having to intervene to keep the Based momentum going was not how this collaboration was envisioned, nor how development resources were originally budgeted.

that said, contingency planning has been underway and is now accelerating. please keep this context in mind before directing frustration toward contributors on the Pepecoin side. they are stepping in to keep things moving as best as they can, and already have their hands full.

we ask for patience while details are finalized. the community has already endured enough premature expectations. we will not repeat that mistake by publishing immature plans. development, testing, and refinement will continue in consultation with the broader community wherever possible, and we intend for that process to be transparent and collaborative.

on values and direction:

we love Pepecoin. many of us have been building in this ecosystem for years - nearly a decade in some cases. open collaboration, transparency, creativity, and fun are the values that brought this community together. passive-aggressive opacity is not part of that ethos.

platforms like Kekspace exist because they allow the community to participate meaningfully and leave their mark. that approach will continue. going forward, we will be more cautious about the level of autonomy granted to external collaborations, because alignment with community values is not optional.

PART 4:

on identity speculation:

Based Labs is a team, not an individual. We will not confirm, or engage in speculation about leaked personal information of any kind. Not to confirm it, not to deny it, and not to speculate at all. amplifying doxxing or identity speculation does not create accountability - it just creates risk and distraction. what matters is conduct and delivery.

on why Based Labs were selected:

the idea that this collaboration occurred without due diligence is not accurate. when originally engaged, we had valid reasons to be confident in the team’s ability to deliver Based as originally envisioned. early collaboration was productive, transparent, and well received.

Based in its current revised form it of course more complex than originally outlined. but nontheless, the concept remains novel, exciting, and worthy of pursuing.

closing comments:

we will keep moving forward in good faith by prioritizing the health of the ecosystem while preserving accountability; and we will continue to provide updates as they are concrete enough to be shared or presented for collaborative input.

Based Guardins minted out FAST!

https://x.com/Based_Guardians/status/2017694780827045926

It's happening.

https://x.com/twitter/status/2023900811089097192

/PEPECOIN_WORLD_ORDER

https://x.com/BasedUnleashed/status/2024035091744211127

Raid this and target @Polymarket

Lets make them create the market which would give $PepeCoin extra exposure and massive marketing.

https://x.com/BasedUnleashed/status/2024175394711052596

There must be a connection somewhere, what if this is where it all started going down?

https://x.com/KEKUnleased/status/2034785440650117487

1/7

hello frens,

wanted to provide a more direct update, as a number of understandable questions remain and there have been meaningful developments since the earlier posts.

the update is structured around three simple points:

- what happened
- what is happening
- what happens next

the short version is this:

- when based labs were originally brought in, there were valid reasons to trust their ability to deliver the original vision. early collaboration was productive, transparent, and well received by both the community and the market.

- there were capable developers and partners working with based labs, and some genuine work was done. however, the existence of partial work does not make the network complete, near-complete, autonomous, or sufficient.

- the central issue was not the absence of capable engineers, genuine work, or valid reasons to trust the collaboration initially. the issue is that what began as a flatter, more collaborative relationship gradually became centered around commiter’s control, representations, and release decisions. as the project moved beyond the original vision, valid concerns were increasingly met with defensiveness, limited visibility, and pivots rather than meaningful engagement, review, and substantive fixes.

- from discussions with recent/former based labs developers, we now understand that capable engineers within based labs repeatedly raised concerns, made fixes, and suggested improvements. too often, those concerns appear to have been dismissed or overtaken by pivots, additional scope-creep, and rushed implementations rather than the work being done to properly stabilize and complete the core network.

- we also understand that some key contributors had stepped back or were excluded from meaningfully participating without this being clearly communicated. that gave us and the community a false sense of comfort about the state of the team and the project.

- recent/former labs developers we have spoken with have been candid and cooperative. however, the information gathered does not give us confidence that commiter is actively delivering based, or that he should be relied upon to do so.

- important parts of the current based network/integration appear to have remained reliant on centralized components under the direct control of based labs' leadership, including components tied to ethereum-side brain activity and emissions. pepecoin does not control those servers.

- based on discussions with cooperative based labs developers, the current chain could theoretically be repaired, however doing so would likely require months of focused development work. it would also still leave the broader unresolved issue of opaque and inconsistent mainnet issuance/emissions, which would likely require a migration or relaunch to address responsibly.

- because of that, we have been examining two main paths for based ecosystem continuity: a parallel path through claw has been in active development that incorporates the based ecosystem while being built from a cleaner foundation, and discussions have been had with cooperative based labs developers around the feasibility and prospect of a migration/relaunch of existing based. the former is already underway, the latter remains TBD.

- claw is a pepecoin initiative. it is not being built by based labs, and has not had contributions from current or former based labs developers. preliminary information has already been shared at claw.pepecoin.io, and a more developed update will be provided there as the work becomes concrete enough to share responsibly.

- pepecoin is not leaving the based ecosystem deserted. we are working to preserve what can be preserved, account for participation where possible, and avoid another cycle of premature promises.

- none of this absolves based labs of their delivery obligations, representations, or accountability.

- there is no active airdrop or migration. be vigilant of scammers as always. do not click random links, admins will not dm you first, and always check that you are in the correct groups/websites.

2/7

what happened:

when based labs were originally brought in, there were valid reasons to believe they could deliver the original vision.

early collaboration was productive, transparent, and well received. the teams worked effectively together, the results were exciting, and the overwhelmingly positive community/market response reflected that.

that part matters, because the situation should not be rewritten as “pepecoin randomly trusted people with no reason.” that is not accurate.

there were capable developers involved, and some real work was done.

the issue is that the original based vision became buried under expanding scope, repeated pivots, and increasingly opaque communication from leadership. what should have remained a narrower and more achievable network became a moving target, too often without adequate deliberation.

v1.1, the bridge, creature cloud, based arena, based god, mining, and other pieces were repeatedly described as close, but did not arrive as complete and reliable deliverables.

for a long time this was difficult to assess from the outside because there were signs of activity: ui mockups, live demos, screenshots, partial implementations, technical explanations, occasional fixes, and repeated assurances that release was close.

that does not make the outcome acceptable. it does explain why, for longer than it should have, there was still reason to think delayed delivery might yet occur.

what changed is that the pattern eventually became too obvious to ignore: repeated claims of near-completion, no corresponding delivery of the core pieces, worsening opacity/passive aggressiveness, and growing questions around how fundamental parts of the system were actually operating.

from what we have since learned, capable engineers within labs did raise concerns, implement/work on fixes, and suggest improvements. too often, those concerns and suggestions appear to have been dismissed or overtaken by new concepts, rushed implementations, and further scope expansion rather than being treated as reasons to slow down and stabilize the core network.

some key contributors also stepped back or were no longer meaningfully involved without this being clearly communicated.

3/7

on the final direct communications:

one of the clearest examples of the broader issue came in the final direct communications.

for a long time, what we were shown was mostly interface-level progress and signs of activity. ui mockups, basic demos, screenshots, and partial previews created confidence that something was being developed.

what they did not provide was enough visibility into the actual functionality, economic design, or readiness of the platform itself.

after repeated followups, late last year a high-level bullet-point outline was eventually provided for how the proposed creature cloud/arena-style mechanism was intended to work (though detailed documentation what what was previously promised, and expected in it's place). the provision of this outline was accompanies by claims that the intent was to keep details close to their chest and do yet another surprise launch.

once that functionality was finally articulated, obvious concerns became clear.

the model appeared highly gameable, unnecessarily complex, and capable of creating avenues for low-quality or illiquid token projects to extract liquid pepecoin from participants if not substantially redesigned.

it also did not clearly address the existing reasons people had participated in based in the first place, including burns, brains, staking, and expectations around the network itself.

when those concerns were raised, they were not met with a serious collaborative attempt to work through the model. the response was dismissive rather than substantive, and communication has gone cold since.

despite concrete questions being asked, the answers did not support the level of readiness that had been represented.

that is the broader pattern we are concerned about: capable people existed, partial work was done, issues were repeatedly identified and voiced by multiple parties across both teams, but instead of committing to difficult fixes and finishing core components properly, based labs repeatedly pivoted, expanded scope, or deflected.