Missed Migration — Refund Proposal for BlueRise Case & Process for Affected Users

Proposals Discussions
1

Hi everyone,

We’re opening this thread to raise awareness about an important issue that has affected several users during the Mars token migration process. We want to outline the background, explain a concrete example (BlueRise’s case), and invite input from the community before putting a formal proposal on-chain.

⸻

:small_blue_diamond: Background

In 2024, the Mars community approved the migration of MARS tokens from Mars Hub to Neutron, with a migration period that ran for several months and was finalized in March 2025. As part of this, any unmigrated tokens were burned.

While many users successfully migrated, there are a few legitimate cases of users who were unaware of the final cutoff and lost their holdings — not due to lack of interest or bad faith, but due to communication challenges.

Even if you followed Mars closely on X/Twitter and Telegram, the migration notices were difficult to spot. Only five posts explicitly mentioned it between summer 2024 and December 22, 2024 — the last one coming just before Christmas. The first truly clear warning that tokens would actually be burned only came on shutdown day itself, giving almost no time for users to react.

In addition, there were no clear warnings in the Keplr wallet interface or Osmosis interface where many users interacted and staked their MARS tokens. This meant that even active users could easily miss that they were at risk of losing their tokens permanently.

Beyond that, some holders were aware of the migration but misunderstood what was required. They moved their old MARS tokens to Osmosis or Neutron but didn’t realize that they also needed to actively swap them for the new MARS token. This technical nuance — not well documented outside a single blog post — caused some holders to inadvertently fail the migration despite taking what they reasonably believed were the correct steps.

⸻

:small_blue_diamond: BlueRise Example

In BlueRise’s case:

• He purchased 21,618 MARS tokens on Osmosis on January 27, 2025 — after all migration-related messaging on X/Twitter and Telegram had already been sent (the last being December 22).

• There was still the possibility to research old posts and figure this out, but realistically, unless you knew exactly what to look for, this would have been difficult — more like looking for a needle in a haystack.

• He staked his tokens immediately on Osmosis, but due to lack of clear alerts in-app or on social channels, he never learned that his tokens would be lost.

⸻

:small_blue_diamond: Verification approach (for BlueRise and potential future claims)

In BlueRise’s case, he can demonstrate via transaction history that the tokens were purchased on Osmosis and that there is no record of them being moved or sold afterward.

However, proving that those tokens were staked (and not withdrawn before the burn) is technically difficult because the Mars Hub chain has been shut down and there’s no functional block explorer.

Here’s what we have proposed in terms of verification:

• A valid transaction record from Mintscan showing the purchase

• Screenshots showing that the tokens were staked

• The Osmosis wallet address

• The old Mars Hub address

But without restoring a snapshot of the chain before shutdown, we cannot independently verify staking status. If anyone in the community has the technical expertise or archival data to help with this validation, we would appreciate the support.

⸻

:small_blue_diamond: Why this matters

This is a relatively small case (~$400 equivalent) but it highlights broader challenges:

• Long-term, non-technical holders and even new buyers couldn’t realistically catch the issue based on communication

• Communication was mixed into a lot of other updates and didn’t sufficiently highlight the severity of the token burn risk

• There were no clear interface warnings in wallets or Osmosis itself

Handling this properly would show that governance is fair and community-driven, while also setting boundaries around how such edge cases could be verified and addressed.

⸻

:small_blue_diamond: Proposal intent

We are preparing a specific proposal to mint 21,618 MARS tokens to BlueRise as a fair remedy.

At the same time, we’re seeking to define a clear framework for verification should there be other legitimate affected users who can come forward before a capped deadline.

⸻

:small_blue_diamond: Request for feedback

We invite feedback from the community on:

• Whether this is a reasonable and fair request

• How verification should work given the technical limitations

• Whether anyone else experienced similar problems and wishes to come forward

If there’s general support, we will move ahead with submitting this as a formal DAODAO governance proposal.

⸻

Thank you all for reading and engaging — and looking forward to your thoughts.

:white_check_mark: We can also attach a detailed history of the five X/Twitter posts and links as supporting evidence if requested.

1 Like
2

Similar case. I withdrew from staking but didn’t do the conversion.

1 Like
3

Hi all! Thanks @bluerise1 for posting this and for the transparency. I can see that you were affected at a point in time when most of the conversation about the token burn had already happened, so I think this is a fair ask.

Just wanted to chime in briefly, I’ve also been affected by this (did not the final conversation but just moved to Osmosis and Neutron), and after speaking with a few others, I realized that some people didn’t even know their tokens were burned until I mentioned it to them.

That makes me think this forum discussion, while important, is mostly being seen by those who are already deeply involved and aware, the majority holders and governance participants. The people who missed the migration may simply not be here right now.

Not saying this as criticism, just noting that this conversation probably isn’t reaching the whole community.

Might be worth also posting something in Discord or even on X/Twitter to make others aware that this discussion is happening, could help surface whether more people were affected

4

Same here!! I’ve also been heavily affected. I moved my MARS tokens to another chain thinking that would be enough, but I wasn’t aware that I had to convert the old token into the new one afterward. It wasn’t clear at all how that process worked.

I agree with the earlier points that this forum feels a bit like an echo chamber. Most people here were probably active enough to follow all the updates, but many others, including myself, clearly missed critical information.

It would be a fair and helpful gesture if the Mars team could post something on X/Twitter to ensure that anyone who might have been affected has a chance to become aware of this proposal and share their input. This also helps ensure that the proposal receives the attention and support it needs for the community to make a fair and informed decision …

5

Thank you for sharing this — I completely agree with your perspective. It’s clear that many affected users, myself included, missed the migration not due to negligence but due to lack of visibility around the final deadline and burn process. I’ve also spoken with others who only found out after their tokens were already gone.

You make a great point that this forum discussion is likely not reaching everyone, especially those who aren’t actively participating in governance or closely following updates. I think amplifying this conversation on Discord and X/Twitter is a great idea. I’ll start by sharing a post myself, and I encourage others to do the same — the more voices we gather, the better chance we have of moving toward a fair resolution.

Thanks again for helping to bring more attention to this.

6

I really relate to your experience — same situation here. I assumed moving my MARS to another chain meant I was in the clear, but I completely missed the step about converting to the new token. The process definitely wasn’t obvious or well-communicated to those who weren’t following every update closely.

You’re absolutely right that this forum can feel like an echo chamber at times. A lot of us affected probably aren’t regular governance participants, which is why spreading awareness beyond the forum is so important.

I strongly support the idea of the Mars team posting on X/Twitter to help reach the wider community. Many more people might be affected and just don’t know it yet — or don’t realize there’s a path toward a possible solution. The more voices we can gather, the more legitimate and representative this proposal will be.

Thanks for speaking up — your story adds even more weight to the need for broader communication and support.

7

Thank you for sharing please spread the message out!

8

In my case, I had 615 MARS staked since Jul-03-2023.
In Mar-22-2025 I saw that the price of my MARS holdings were too low, and I bought 5,680 MARS ($50 worth) at OSMOSIS, and inadvertently I withdraw this whole amount (5,680 MARS) from osmosis to the mars chain. After some time I saw that the withdraw wasn’t completing, and were stuck, when I decided to contact the osmosis support to get some info about, and I was informed that the MARS chain was shutdown 2 days before that day.
So, I have 5,680 MARS ($143 in today’s Jul-24-2025 value) stuck in the relayer between OSMOSIS and the MARS chain.
So yes, if I could get my tokens minted to my account I would also support the fellows that have similar problems with the lost MARS tokens.
And yes, even though I am an active follower of the cosmos community Telegram chats, I never saw anyone sharing any info about the shutting down of the MARS chain.