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.

4/7

on the current technical state:

after speaking with recent/former technical contributors to based labs, our understanding is that the situation is more serious than “a few missing features.”

to put it plainly, there appears to have been a decentralized node layer, but also important centralized dependencies involved in watching and relaying ethereum-side brain activity into the network, including functions tied to emissions.

that is not what many in the community would reasonably assume when hearing “mainnet” for what should be a decentralized protocol.

pepecoin does not control the relevant servers. and even if access were obtained, that would not magically resolve the larger problem.

based on what we have learned, repairing the current chain into something closer to the original vision would likely require months of focused development work - and even then, the emissions/issuance problems would still need to be addressed.

it was already apparent that emissions were not transparently aligning with the original whitepaper expectations. what we have since learned makes that more serious, because key parts of the network appear to have remained dependent on centralized infrastructure and practical control maintained by commiter, we do not have access to this infrastructure, nor should such infrastructure be required for such critical functionality in a mainnet candidate.

we have not received a clear explanation of the actual mainnet emissions schedule, why it differs from what was originally understood, or how the relevant controls were being operated.

that means the question is not simply “can the chain be fixed?”

the question is also whether the current chain can be responsibly used as the foundation for future development without first addressing opaque issuance and emissions.

that may require a migration or relaunch even if parts of the chain are technically repairable.

5/7

what is happening:

we are actively working through the facts and possible paths forward.

that includes:

- speaking with recent/former technical contributors

- reviewing what was actually built

- understanding what state and balances can be preserved

- evaluating what parts of the current network are usable

- assessing whether a migration or relaunch of based is viable

- and continuing work on a parallel path that can incorporate the based ecosystem if the existing network cannot be responsibly relied upon

there are two broad paths being examined.

the first is a parallel path, such as claw.

this involves building from a cleaner foundation while incorporating the existing based ecosystem where possible.

the advantage of this path is that it avoids being trapped by the technical and economic baggage of the current implementation.

the tradeoff is that it requires careful design so that existing participation is accounted for fairly and responsibly.

the second is a possible migration/relaunch of existing based; which we have discussed with recent/former members of based labs who are knowledgable on the technical architecture of based, developmentally capable, and who are cooperative.

from those discussions it has been disclosed that in theory, parts of the chain could be fixed and built toward something closer to the original vision. however, based on what we have learned, that would likely require months of focused work and would not fully address several other core issues.

continued development on the existing network would still require addressing the emissions/issuance opacity and inconsistencies; because there is no use moving the existing network forward if the mainnet asset accounting remains opaque or inconsistent with what participants were led to understand. a minor deviation could be tolerated, but what currently exists is a substantial departure of the expected tokenomics.

while we have already begun work on a parallel pathway, the door is not completely shut to the possibility of a revival of the existing chain.

what we can say is that waiting passively on based labs is no longer a responsible strategy.

6/7

on claw/the parallel path:

in parallel, pepecoin has already begun contingency work on a cleaner path that can incorporate the existing based ecosystem without relying on outsourced development.

that work is claw.

claw is entirely a pepecoin initiative.

it is not being built by based labs, and has not had contributions from current or former based labs developers.

that distinction is important.

we have consulted with recent/former labs developers to better understand the viability of the current based network from a continued development, relaunch, and migration perspective. but claw itself is not outsourced to based labs, and is not dependent on based labs.

preliminary information has already been shared at claw.pepecoin.io, but significant development and refinement has occurred since then.

a more developed update will be provided there once it is concrete enough to share responsibly.

this does not automatically mean claw is the only path. but claw exists because waiting passively on based labs is no longer viable.

there is no point preserving labels just for the sake of it.

the goal is ecosystem continuity, accountability, and making sure the people who participated in based are not left stuck around a network that cannot presently be relied upon.

7/7

what happens next:

the immediate priority is not to make another premature promise.

the immediate priority is to determine the most responsible path for ecosystem continuity.

as part of this, we have been evaluating the following:

- can existing based balances, claims, and participation be preserved or extracted reliably?

- can the current based network be repaired in a way that is worth the time and risk?

- can the emissions/issuance issue be addressed transparently and fairly?

- would a migration/relaunch be required even if the current chain is technically repairable?

- is it better to pursue a cleaner parallel architecture that incorporates based participants from the beginning? or a mixture of the two.

though ideally an effective claw implementation would make a relaunch/recovery unnecessary.

we are not going to publish arbitrary dates, completion percentages, or immature mechanics just to relieve pressure in the moment.

doing that would repeat the exact pattern people are frustrated by.

what we can say is that we do not plan to leave the ecosystem in a stalled state.

on identity speculation:

as already mentioned, we are not going to engage in speculation around leaked personal identities.

it is important to recognize that any accountability avenues are not helped at all by turning the public chat into a doxxing and/or threat hurling thread.

what matters is conduct, records, representations, delivery, and the actual state of the network.

on accountability:

based labs’ obligations do not disappear because time has passed, because communication stopped, or because recovery/migration work is now being explored.

working on a path to protect the ecosystem is not the same thing as excusing what has happened.

substantial resources were provided to based labs with the expectation of delivery, oversight, and accountability. that oversight was not meaningfully provided, and we have been reviewing funding, representations, obligations, and partners. steps are being taken to pursue accountability through appropriate channels. those details will be kept private for now, but needless to say, based labs’ obligations, representations, and accountability do not disappear because communication stopped.

we understand why people want blunt answers. we also understand why people are frustrated.

we will continue to share updates as facts become concrete enough to communicate responsibly.

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

kekmember this:

We are PepeCoin OGs.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us. (and drop your @)

https://x.com/KEKUnleased/status/2092228167012413809

Check your INK wallets for LifeNodes, kek!

https://x.com/KEKUnleased/status/2095840939084218403