Pudgy DAOs: Public Support, Private Accountability? Pudgy DAOs raises serious questions about transparency, endorsement and accountability within the Abstract ecosystem. The official launch page states that @pudgydaos was built on @AbstractChain and that its launch event was presented by PENGU Asia. It also announced that Pudgy Penguins CEO Luca Netz (@LucaNetz) and CCO Peter Lobanov (@chefgoyardi) would attend discussions described as helping shape the project’s future. @PenguAsia, whose X profile displays a @pudgypenguins affiliate badge, also repeatedly promoted Pudgy DAOs. Public involvement from recognized executives and affiliated communities could reasonably have influenced how participants assessed the project’s credibility and risks. The ED3N Ventures Connection The network extends to ED3N Ventures. The website linked by @eden_holdings presents Yield Guild Games as a Core Project. Its Highlights section repeatedly features YGG related organizations, partnerships, financing rounds and gaming activities. The official Pudgy DAOs launch page goes further. It states that ED3N’s track record includes cofounding and scaling YGG and presents ED3N as a venture studio providing projects with capital, strategy and access to a global network. There is also a verifiable technical connection. Multiple visual assets on the Pudgy DAOs website are loaded through the same content delivery domain used by the ED3N Ventures website. Direct links to these files are included in the evidence section. This shared infrastructure does not prove that ED3N owned or controlled Pudgy DAOs. It does, however, establish a documented technical link and strengthens the need for both parties to explain the nature and extent of their operational relationship. YGG Play and Abstract @YGG_Play also has direct ties to Abstract. YGG confirms that @LOLLandGame was built on Abstract, that @GIGACHADBAT launched there and that Abstract became the primary home of YGG Play’s casual gaming ecosystem. LOL Land also collaborated with Pudgy Penguins and PENGU Asia through Pengu Wonderland. According to YGG, the project used Pudgy Penguins intellectual property and featured members of the Pudgy community. ED3N Ventures also repeatedly features YGG, its regional organizations and related gaming initiatives in its Highlights section. These recurring relationships, the support surrounding them and the purposes they served deserve closer examination and a transparent explanation. User Complaints and Unanswered Questions Against this background, users replying under a Pudgy DAOs post say they lost money and are requesting refunds. We have not found a clear public statement addressing these complaints, explaining the project’s current status or establishing whether a refund process exists. We also could not identify a clear public disclosure naming the founders or responsible operators of Pudgy DAOs. As shown in the evidence section, @fides_0x used collective language when discussing the project. This language may indicate involvement, but it does not independently establish a specific formal role. That uncertainty is itself part of the transparency problem. The SimpleFarmer Allegation A separate allegation was published by @0xStudy, not by @OxSimpleFarmer. The post alleges that @RajPatel obstructed SimpleFarmer following discussions about launching his project on Abstract. This allegation has not been independently verified and should not be treated as an established fact. It nevertheless deserves examination and a direct response from Raj Patel or the Abstract team, particularly regarding whether projects were evaluated according to clear and consistent criteria. The Broader Question None of these connections independently proves fraud, favoritism or coordinated wrongdoing. Together, however, they raise a legitimate public interest question: Why did projects connected to prominent executives, affiliated communities and established venture networks receive significant visibility while users were later requesting refunds and another builder was reportedly facing obstruction? My personal view is that senior figures within Abstract appear to have opened doors for people in their network, while several projects receiving this access later failed or became inactive. I believe this apparent pattern deserves serious and independent scrutiny. This leads to a broader question that should be investigated rather than assumed: Was Abstract Chain created or subsequently used, even in part, to provide legitimacy, visibility or liquidity to projects originating from this connected network? This is my opinion and a question requiring investigation, not an established conclusion. Any credible answer must be based on verifiable records, transparent disclosures and direct responses from the people and organizations involved. Pudgy DAOs is presented here as a documented case study of a broader transparency problem. Concerns involving other projects should be investigated separately and assessed according to the evidence available in each case. Public support creates public responsibility. Pudgy leadership, PENGU Asia, ED3N Ventures and Abstract should clearly disclose their roles, the extent of their involvement and the protections that existed for participants.

From Farming Whitelists to Filtering Farmers In January 2022, @LucaNetz publicly described NFT whitelist farming as a way to earn between $7,000 and $15,000 per month. He recommended targeting hyped projects, securing whitelist access and selling before reveal. In a related post, he explained how the process could be automated by hiring virtual assistants to grind Discord whitelists and involving friends or family in exchange for a share of the profits. Another archived post shows him asking whether anyone could obtain thousands of Discord accounts. These are not assumptions about his past. His own public statements document that he participated in and promoted the same farming culture that later became a target of scrutiny within Abstract. @AbstractChain encouraged users to play ecosystem games, collect badges, earn XP and remain continuously active. Many community members spent money and invested substantial time based on expectations created around participation and future rewards. The Four Pillars document then presented farmers as users to be identified through factors such as activity, behavior, onchain history and reputation. In practice, the founder who once promoted whitelist farming later became associated with an ecosystem that treated farmers primarily as a category to detect and filter. Now Abstract is winding down. The network says it will cease operating on December 15, 2026. After almost two years of community participation, the final result is not a sustainable ecosystem or a meaningful return for many users. It is a shutdown and a deadline to move their assets. This is the central contradiction. Farming was presented as a profitable strategy when Luca practiced and promoted it. Under Abstract, similar incentive driven behavior was encouraged through XP and badges, then viewed with suspicion when users expected recognition. The community deserves a complete explanation of how farmers were classified, which users were excluded and what value was created from nearly two years of their money, labor and attention. Abstract may be ending, but accountability should not end with it.