We would like to inform you that Kracker Labs and NFTBank will resign from the Kaia Governance Council effective 30 September 2025.
The Kaia Foundation will proceed with the necessary offboarding process to ensure continuity and stability of the network.
Thank you for your understanding and continued support.
I was a delegator to Kracker Labs. After Kracker Labs resigned on September 30, 2025, I have been completely unable to withdraw my delegated KAIA. The node operators left without returning delegated funds or providing any instructions for withdrawal. My wallet shows my KAIAs delegated to Kracker Labs (status: Resigned), and I am unable to unstake." Does the Kaia Foundation have any plan to assist affected delegators?
Hello.
Please be advised that Kracker Labs managed their delegation services through the Stake.ly platform, which operates independently from Kaia Square. To resolve this, please contact the Kracker Labs team directly at: contact@krackerlabs.io
When reaching out, we recommend providing your wallet address and a screenshot of your current delegation status to help expedite the verification and assistance process.
크래커랩스 사례를 보면서 더욱 이해하기 어려워졌습니다.
재단은 지금도 신규 GC 후보들에게 500만 KAIA 위임을 검토하고 있습니다.
그런데 먼저 답해야 할 질문은 이것 아닙니까?
기존 GC 제도는 정말 성공적이었습니까?
크래커랩스는 과거 재단의 위임 물량을 기반으로 GC 활동을 했습니다.
하지만 논란 끝에 사임했고, 그 과정에서 생태계와 투자자들에게 무엇을 남겼는지에 대한 공식적인 성과 평가를 본 적이 없습니다.
얼마의 보상이 발생했는지,
그 보상이 어디에 사용되었는지,
당초 약속했던 공약 중 무엇을 달성했는지,
무엇을 달성하지 못했는지,
커뮤니티는 알지 못합니다.
더 심각한 것은 실제 위임자들의 문제입니다.
최근 한 위임자는 다음과 같은 문제를 제기했습니다.
“Kracker Labs가 사임한 이후 지금까지도 위임했던 KAIA를 인출할 수 없다. 노드 운영자는 아무런 안내도 없이 떠났고, 지갑에는 여전히 Resigned 상태로 표시되지만 언스테이킹이 불가능하다.”
만약 이것이 사실이라면 매우 심각한 문제입니다.
GC는 떠났는데,
위임자는 자산을 회수하지 못하고,
재단은 신규 GC 모집에만 집중하고 있다면,
도대체 누가 기존 참여자들을 보호합니까?
이쯤 되면 커뮤니티는 매우 단순한 질문을 할 수밖에 없습니다.
재단이 제공하는 500만 KAIA는 정확히 무엇입니까?
대여입니까?
위임입니까?
아니면 사실상 무상 지원입니까?
원금은 재단 소유라고 설명할 수 있습니다.
하지만 그 500만 KAIA에서 발생하는 검증인 보상과 경제적 이익은 대부분 해당 GC가 가져갑니다.
그렇다면 결국 재단 자산을 기반으로 민간 기업에게 수익 창출 기회를 제공하는 구조 아닙니까?
더구나 최근 GC 신청서들을 보면 더욱 의문이 듭니다.
수십억 달러 규모의 거래를 처리한다는 글로벌 기업,
수백만 사용자를 보유했다는 플랫폼 기업,
대형 VC와 대기업의 투자를 받은 기업들이 하나같이 말합니다.
“500만 KAIA는 재단이 제공해 주십시오.”
왜입니까?
카이아의 미래를 믿는다고 하면서 왜 자기 자본은 투자하지 않습니까?
카이아의 거버넌스에 참여하고 싶고,
검증인 보상을 받고 싶고,
생태계 확장에 영향력을 행사하고 싶다면,
최소한 커뮤니티와 같은 방향의 경제적 리스크 정도는 함께 부담해야 하는 것 아닙니까?
수많은 개인 투자자들은 자신의 돈으로 수십만 개, 수백만 개의 KAIA를 매수했고 수년 동안 가격 폭락을 견뎌왔습니다.
그런데 전문 기업들은 재단 물량으로 GC가 되고,
보상을 받고,
영향력을 행사하고,
성과 검증 없이 떠나도 되는 구조라면,
이것이 과연 공정한 시스템입니까?
신규 GC를 계속 승인하기 전에 먼저 공개해야 할 것이 있습니다.
현재까지 재단이 위임한 총 KAIA 수량
각 GC별 누적 보상 수령액
신청 당시 공약과 실제 달성 결과
생태계 기여 성과
중도 사임한 GC들의 성과 평가 보고서
위임자 보호 정책 및 지원 방안
커뮤니티가 원하는 것은 또 다른 화려한 GC 제안서가 아닙니다.
커뮤니티가 원하는 것은 책임입니다.
그리고 신뢰입니다.
신뢰는 새로운 GC를 추가한다고 생기는 것이 아닙니다.
지금까지 위임받은 GC들이 무엇을 했고, 무엇을 남겼으며, 얼마를 받았는지 투명하게 공개할 때 비로소 회복될 수 있습니다.
Kaia Foundation은 신규 GC 모집보다 먼저 이 질문들에 답해야 합니다.
The Kracker Labs case makes this situation even more difficult to understand.
The Foundation continues to consider delegating 5 million KAIA to new GC applicants.
But before that, shouldn’t a more fundamental question be answered?
Has the current GC system actually been successful?
Kracker Labs previously operated as a GC member using Foundation-delegated stake.
After controversy, it resigned.
Yet the community has never seen a transparent performance review explaining what value was actually delivered to the ecosystem.
How much reward was generated?
How was that reward used?
Which commitments were fulfilled?
Which commitments were not fulfilled?
The community simply does not know.
Even more concerning is the situation faced by actual delegators.
A recent delegator reported that after Kracker Labs resigned, they were unable to withdraw their delegated KAIA.
According to the report, the node operator left without providing guidance, while the wallet still displays the delegation under a “Resigned” status and the funds remain inaccessible.
If this is true, it raises a serious concern.
The GC member is gone.
The delegator cannot recover their assets.
And the Foundation is already discussing the next round of GC candidates.
Who is protecting the existing participants?
At this point, the community is entitled to ask a very simple question.
What exactly is this 5 million KAIA provided by the Foundation?
Is it a loan?
A delegation?
Or effectively a subsidy?
The principal may remain Foundation-owned.
However, the validator rewards and economic benefits generated from those assets are generally received by the GC operator.
If so, isn’t this effectively a structure where Foundation assets are used to create revenue opportunities for private companies?
What makes this even harder to understand is that many recent applicants describe themselves as globally recognized companies.
They claim to process billions of dollars in transactions.
They claim to have millions of users.
They claim backing from major venture capital firms and large corporations.
Yet they all seem to arrive at the same conclusion:
“Please provide the 5 million KAIA for us.”
Why?
If they truly believe in the future of Kaia, why are they unwilling to invest their own capital?
If they want governance influence,
validator rewards,
and a voice in shaping the future of the ecosystem,
shouldn’t they also be willing to share at least some of the same economic risk as the community?
Many individual investors have purchased hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of KAIA with their own money and endured years of market losses.
Meanwhile, professional organizations can receive Foundation-backed stake,
gain governance influence,
earn rewards,
and leave without any meaningful public evaluation of their performance.
Is that really a fair system?
Before approving additional GC members, the Foundation should first disclose:
The total amount of KAIA delegated so far
The cumulative rewards received by each GC member
The commitments made by each GC applicant
The actual results delivered
Performance reviews of resigned GC members
Delegator protection policies and support procedures
The community does not need another impressive GC proposal.
The community needs accountability.
And it needs trust.
Trust will not be restored by adding more GC members.
It will be restored when the Foundation transparently shows what existing GC members promised, what they delivered, how much they received, and what value they ultimately created for the ecosystem.
Before recruiting new GC members, the Kaia Foundation should answer these questions first.
Hello.
Following your advice on April 28, I immediately emailed Kracker Labs (contact@krackerlabs.io). Including my first inquiry, I have sent two emails in total.
However, nearly two months have passed, and I have received absolutely zero responses. They have completely ghosted the community.
I believe Kracker Labs has effectively rugged their delegators. It is hard to believe that this could happen with an official, foundation-backed partner of the KAIA ecosystem. What is the Foundation’s plan to assist affected participants?