FatMan

This fund already existed - it was pitched to me by two trusted lawyers (both real; one public, one anon) and a supposed fund manager (anon). This happened several days ago, and it looked like the perfect solution as it was cheaper for the victims and ready-made. (2/17)

Donors could buy tokens and vote on DAO decisions. The fund would only take 2x back as profit when we win, as opposed to 4x or higher from traditional litigation funding. All funds raised would be held by these three individuals in a multisig wallet. (3/17)

And then, something a little unexpected happened: my Twitter account got a lot more followers. I realized at this stage that anything I put out would likely get a lot in donations fairly quickly, so I decided security had to be made far more robust than it currently was. (4/17)

Firstly, I insisted that someone trusted and public-facing should be added to the multisig. I suggested Cobie or a US law firm. The fund contacted a fourth lawyer (a legitimate one) and he was added as a multisig holder. I was relieved, and things were looking good. (5/17)

Sadly, today I learned some things about their structure that I didn't previously know - some things were misrepresented to me and some, admittedly, I didn't check up on due to being very busy at the time. One - the fee would not just be 2x - lawyers may take a cut too. (6/17)

Two - 50% of the tokens raised would be given to the multisig holders to 'slowly distribute' to the community. I assumed that all tokens would go to donors, and this part didn't really make sense to me - a legitimate DAO would not have this level of centralization. (7/17)

Three - proposals made on Snapshot for the DAO would be 'filtered'. This was revealed today, and it confused me - shouldn't DAO holders have a final say on what happens with their donations? Why should an internal group control proposals? (This reminds me of someone...) (8/17)

Over the past few days, they pressured me to release their links to the public ASAP. I was patient and I told them I needed some time to think. I'm glad I did. Due to these new facts, I have decided not to share their link with the public. There were too many red flags. (9/17)

This may sound like bad news, but there's a happy ending to this story that makes it all worth it. My Twitter account receiving this much exposure caught the attention of several high profile law firms and litigation funders from across the world, mostly the US. (10/17)

I believe this case will be historic, and I believe combining our research with legal discovery will lead to the most shocking court battle in all of crypto history. Law firms seem to agree - I am in talks with a select few and we will release more information soon. (11/17)

I am happy to announce that three law firms have offered to commit over $15m (maybe more) to this historic fight for justice - they are looking to fund the case and will collect fees on a contingency basis. This could never have happened without all of you. (12/17)

I'm currently brokering the best deal possible for UST victims within our class of retail investors - right now, the haircut range is expensive (a traditional cut going to lawyers), but optimistically this should come down - I'm verifying claim data and working hard BTS. (13/17)

The best part of all? This action will be free for our class of victims to join. They pay nothing upfront & nothing if we lose - if we win, they are given their UST debt (minus legal fees) straight into their pocket. Contingency, although expensive, is quite neat. (14/17)

In jurisdictions like Singapore where contingency is less prevalent, we are also in touch with litigation funders interested in helping out in a similar manner, and I'm working on ironing out non-predatory terms that best represent victims' interests. (15/17)

Overall, I'm very pleased that things have played out this way. Even though the initial DAO pitched to me did not involve me being on the multisig (of my own volition), once my account became this popular, I realized that a 0.05% risk-of-rug was 0.05% too high. (16/17)