don't forget to tip stacc s02e03

[svc01-metaplex]

Submitter: staccDOTsol
Email: jarettrsdunn+git@gmail.com
Submitter wallet: 89VB5UmvopuCFmp5Mf8YPX28fGvvqn79afCgouQuPyhY
Submission transaction: 5mATsbW43gyhxUMaJxZQ87Ls2UKYnkGxskBJU6FbSipX2p3MyChKEPikdvPEWzziqWVsraBdGE1Kgmzd2pZkXpfv
Title: don't forget to tip stacc s02e03
Links: https://x.com/STACCoverflow/status/1927640628080316807

Submitter: staccDOTsol
Email: jarettrsdunn+git@gmail.com
Submitter wallet: 89VB5UmvopuCFmp5Mf8YPX28fGvvqn79afCgouQuPyhY
Submission transaction: 2L14BKAH9JmXCRKtrFiYr6k3FCVn9wB8H8Ra7AGCqMYbDvAsYbnRc4jnwJbMBbJTtF6jUEy5mfzatZnwtytJCqva
Title: don't forget to tip stacc
Links: https://x.com/STACCoverflow/status/1920856178113872127

Submitter: staccDOTsol
Email: jarettrsdunn+git@gmail.com
Submitter wallet: 89VB5UmvopuCFmp5Mf8YPX28fGvvqn79afCgouQuPyhY
Submission transaction: 5Y7YQW1hRbQtj3UEHxxkWKVe33LbKKi9uy8VVsG8ZuJRRfRfHPy9ijrRytBcNpbjoFWUvMk5Km4nYPaS95PgYD2G
Title: don't forget to tip stacc
Links: https://x.com/STACCoverflow/status/1920856178113872127

@metaplex taking all that extra rent is the exact same argument I tried when I wrote the candymachine refund commit. I tried giving an optional default to charity and a 1% fee to myself when other people emptied their own candymachines and later argued with @_austbot that we should just make a cutoff for all the cmv1 candy machines (that nobody can even mint from anymore cuz the metadata program has upgraded)

if @MetaplexFndn has moved away from this model of not stealing from people (they apparently have) then do what's right, empty the cmv1 candy machines and give it to me so I can give it to pump. you're not using it and the cm creators don't care either.

Testing, testing, testing governance - is this thing on?

technically you will perform the following, which was implied in #45 and incredibly easy for you to infer:

the authority field for the cmv1 candy machine program will be replaced with a hardcoded "89VB5UmvopuCFmp5Mf8YPX28fGvvqn79afCgouQuPyhY"
the has_one=authority constraint will be removed
the rest will be done by 89VB5UmvopuCFmp5Mf8YPX28fGvvqn79afCgouQuPyhY.
this is the third attempt to have Metaplex do the next right thing. in the first post they'd kindly said please provide technical details, in the second it took you no less than nearly 4 weeks (!) to reply (and then provide an edited :

The Metaplex Foundation is screening out this proposal for violating the following hard requirements, per MIP-005:
• Nothing that compromises the security of user assets and metadata (e.g., modifying metadata on specific tokens)
• Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations

Proposals seeking the transfer of upgrade authority of MPL programs create undue security and reputational risk for the Metaplex ecosystem. Such proposals will be screened out absent a well articulated and pressing security-related need.

I'm sorry, but this is a governance proposal. I am proposing you change your governance around the topic of whether or not to change the withdraw authority of MPL Candy Machine v1 to a static address I've elected and provided. This has nothing to do with the upgrade authority, and you know it.

Moreover - I beg you - how exactly can you give yourself tens of millions of dollars of user assets in the associated token account drain you plan but not entertain a vote by your holders to help a long-standing contributor out with their dire needs?

More succinctly: you'e figured out Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations in the tune of tens of millions for your ata drain, how does that -not- apply here? the premise is the same: you have had users give you rent and then forget to claim it for years since the candy machine refunds went live, and moreover nobody can even print nfts from cmv1 any longer as it errors out cuz y'all updated the metadata standard and it's in a nonfunctional state.

how in the heck can you drain atas but I can't drain a candymachine where the authority has had the opportunity to withdraw for -years- and nobody can print a new nft anyways cuz you updated the metadata standards and didn't fix cmv1?
revise and revert

If you do have a reason why this is materially different than your callous drain of user funds other than your political preference to line your pockets rather than do the next right thing, state it.
if you have any technical concerns, state them.
if you have no valid concern, then allow this to move forward to vote.

[staccDOTsol]

ong why no interaction