Supporting records

1. Stated handover, retained control

On 12 August 2024, Philipp Mager’s TLA launch proposal specified transfer of contract administration to Phoenix Directive Stewardship after one month and configuration ownership after three months. The original document identifies the ERIS administration and configuration wallets.

“Contract Admin will be transferred to PD Stewardship after 1 month.”
“Ownership transferred to PD Stewardship after 3 months.”

Read the terms in the original repository

The reviewed chain records show that the authority remained outside Stewardship and was repeatedly exercised. In his public reply on 19 October 2026, Philipp explained that ERIS continued to develop, maintain and operate the contracts and had not considered transferring authority appropriate because of concerns about the board.

That explanation records his decision to withhold the authority. No replacement authorization for the published transfer terms was located in the reviewed records.

The strict transaction count below uses 27 November 2024 at 06:02:52 UTC, three calendar months after proposal 4817’s voting end, as a conservative common cutoff. The launch text does not specify a start-date formula. “Ownership” here refers to contract configuration ownership; it is not a blanket transfer of all software intellectual property.

Sources: TLA · FR55 · AUTH

2. What the retained authority was used for

31 privileged operations in 19 successful transactions were identified after that cutoff, affecting seven of the ten original TLA contracts. This is a bounded audit of the original deployment; later Treasury and other product actions are identified separately.

These acts include admitting ERIS arbLUNA as voting collateral, changing operator permissions and fee recipients, replacing code, excluding assets from incentives, and installing a wallet restriction. Preserved offline tests of the deployed code showed the restriction affecting staking, unstaking and reward claims. No failed live withdrawal by the affected wallet was recovered.

These transactions record repeated use of powers that the launch proposal said would be transferred. The ledger identifies the sender, affected contracts and changes made.

The fee-recipient change produced an identifiable flow: 228 payments of 10 LUNA across 95 transactions — 2,280 LUNA, approximately $159.95 at the saved historical valuations. This stream is itemized separately and excluded from the main payments total pending overlap reconciliation with the broader ERIS fee ledger.

Sources: AUTH · E06b · E06g · F02 · F03 · E12c

3. Separate technical powers at the 24 October snapshot

Public chain queries captured on 24 October 2026 still show the q0v wallet as migration administrator of the Phoenix Treasury, global registry and four checked TLA staking contracts. The registry’s stored owner remains the kefa wallet, with no pending owner. The launch documents attribute these addresses to ERIS; Philipp publicly explains the continuing administration.

The ordinary Treasury and delegation-controller roles point to the board. Those roles do not remove the separate registry-owner and code-replacement powers. Changing board membership alone does not complete a technical handover.

At the 24 October snapshot, Amplifier proposal 9 was passed: 70 YES weight against a 70-weight threshold, out of 90 total weight. It proposes migration-admin transfers for the ampLUNA hub and CW20-ICS20. At the captured blocks both still named the existing ERIS multisig, so execution was not shown. The proposal does not transfer the Treasury, TLA registry or the hub’s stored owner. These are dated queries at separate heights, not a live status feed.

Sources: CT-treasury_info · CT-registry_info · CT-registry_owner · CT-registry_addresses · CT-proposal9 · CT-proposal9_votes · CT-hub_info · CT-ics20_info

4. Beneficiaries also proposed, approved or executed payments

The same people appear as beneficiaries and as proposers, voters or executors in the following distributions.

The payments and ballots connect financial beneficiaries to the decisions releasing funds. Neutron’s records also document completed Superbolt milestones.

Selected work/invoice receipts in the attached 105-payment schedule: Philipp-associated recipients 263,555.50 USDC; MB-associated recipients 161,915.50 USDC; Rebel-associated recipients 97,475.50 USDC. This is a selected historical schedule, not complete lifetime income. Upstream project funding and downstream distributions must not be added twice.

The separate 2024 TLA grant of 384,615 LUNA was paid on 7 June 2024 at EndBlock 10,666,963. This native award has no ordinary payment transaction hash. The proposal and block records are supplied. This was project development and audit funding.

Sources: E10a · E10b · E10c · E10f · E10g · E10h · E11a · F01 · F03 · E04a · E04b

5. Milestone payments and captured delivery

A 10,000-USDC Creda analytics milestone was paid on 27 January 2026. The dedicated analytics page appeared unfinished in the 18 October capture. Other analytics screens and an API response were also captured. The linked records preserve the payment, the milestone wording and the captured product screens.

The Estima sequence runs from the rejected 150,000-USDC request to the approved 125,000-USDC arrangement, a 45,000-USDC release and an 80,000-USDC balance not shown paid in that snapshot. No Philipp ballot is recorded on the original approval (A266); he voted YES on the later release (A271). The separate 5,000-USDC migration payment had approvals by the other three directors and no recorded Philipp vote.

Sources: E05b · E05c · E05d · E05e · E05f · E05g · E07a · E07c · E07e

6. A272 would have removed the need for independent consent

A272 sought removal of a member and a threshold reduction from 75% to 60%. With three equal remaining seats, Philipp and MB could approve proposals together even if the third director voted NO. They both voted YES on A272. A272 failed; the captured current configuration remains four equal members and a 75% threshold.

The proposed structure would have made the financially connected pair sufficient to approve decisions without another member’s consent.

The later temporary voting undertaking would limit intended votes, with an exception for onboarding new directors. It would not remove the on-chain ability to authorize actions. The exception also concerns who controls the future board.

The updated Emergency Supervisor proposal allows scrutiny of any director where relevant, but remains framed around the dysfunction underlying A272 and contemplates a removal instruction. The removal process therefore sits alongside the proposed threshold change and the existing distribution of technical and financial powers.

With the present 75% configuration, explicit abstention can affect the denominator; a missing vote is not an abstention. The decisive A272 comparison is two YES votes against the third member’s NO in the proposed three-seat structure.

Sources: E09a · E09b · E09c · FR1 · FR57 · CT-board_config · CT-board_members

7. MB’s votes on Philipp’s proposals

In the retained main-board record, MB voted YES on 251 of the 252 Philipp proposals on which he cast a ballot. The record covers A1–A289, captured on 23 October 2026, and combines MB’s earlier and current board wallets. Philipp submitted 288 proposals: 251 MB YES votes, one NO and 36 with no recorded MB vote.

*The one NO was on A28, which used the wrong contract. MB voted NO on A28 and voted YES on corrected A29 5 minutes 10 seconds later. The A29 proposal identifies the wrong contract and asks that A28 be vetoed.

Philipp submitted 288 of the 289 proposals in this snapshot. MB’s other YES vote was on Vini’s proposal. All 253 recorded MB ballots were matched to successful transactions in the underlying audit.

The voting record, beneficiary approvals and paid relationships must be examined together when assessing independent oversight.

Download all voting rows (CSV) · Download the voting data (JSON) · Read the voting audit

Sources: VOTE

8. Pressure and economic leverage

Validators report pressure over delegation and governance positions. Preserved evidence includes undelegation threats and threats to withdraw operational support. Reports also describe repeated threats following criticism and pressure to align with proposed governance changes.

Economic dependence gives these threats force. Delegations, incentives, product access and essential services affect whether participants can challenge the people controlling those resources.

Supporting private records are retained. Reporting-source identities, dates, recipients, exact private wording and relay details are not published.

9. All 19 transactions in the strict TLA count

Transactions are grouped below; multiple privileged operations may occur in one transaction. The linked raw responses and full operation ledger permit independent checking.

Download chronology · Download complete operation ledger

10. Sources, preservation and download

This public edition contains selected public documents, transaction responses, the voting audit and marked analytical summaries. Private conversations, witness identities, private corporate documents and the private counsel package are excluded.

Original source bytes and publication derivatives are distinguished in the source index. Where an identifying reference was removed from a public forum extract, that file is marked as a redacted derivative. File hashes establish consistency with this published package; they do not independently prove authorship or capture time.

The preserved public repository has a separate Git backup and an earlier independently issued timestamp over its capture manifest. That timestamp applies to that repository manifest, not to this newly prepared summary. The repository bundle was restored and checked locally on 24 October: seven commits and 295 objects.

Original repository · Independent GitHub copy · Handover and repository preservation · External forum archives