This will be SCRT Labs’ only response to Lisa’s latest proposal and the claims surrounding it.
The current draft asks existing SCRT holders to accept dilution whose worked example is 80%, while a new entity led by Lisa would receive both a token allocation and an ongoing tax. The size of that allocation, the tax rate, vesting, budget, team, legal structure and execution plan are all left to be determined later. The community can decide whether that is a credible path. We will not tell it how to vote.
But the proposal, and the campaign surrounding it, rely on claims about SCRT Labs that are false or seriously misleading. Because those claims are now being used to justify consequential decisions, the relevant facts should be placed clearly on the record.
Background
SCRT Labs created and built Secret Network. For years, we funded core development, infrastructure, contractors, maintenance and to an extent - work performed by SNF personnel, often quietly and without seeking public credit. We continued doing so at enormous financial and personal cost, including long after it was economically rational for us, purely out of belief in the network’s potential.
We built something genuinely important. Secret was the first mainnet blockchain with privacy-preserving smart contracts, and ideas it helped pioneer, particularly TEE-based confidential computation, are now used throughout the blockchain industry. We are proud of that work and of everyone who contributed to it.
Eventually, we concluded that the existing L1 model was no longer sustainable. We believed, and still believe, that migrating SCRT to Arbitrum was the best first step toward giving SCRT a sustainable future. The remaining community has expressed a strong preference to continue the L1. We respect that preference.
Remediation and SNF funding
The claim that Labs refused to address remediation or fund SNF is false.
Before announcing the migration proposal, we held multiple open discussions with SNF’s operational team. Lisa was not participating in those discussions, given the fact that she informed us almost a year ago that she had decided to step back from active management of SNF. We agreed that automatic inflation would end, SNF would propose the funding it required, SNF would propose an amount for Axelar remediation, and Labs would develop the complex code needed to identify affected holders fairly.
Work on that code began. As with any responsible technical undertaking, the final mechanism remained subject to technical feasibility and risk assessment.
Our proposal explicitly provided for an SNF treasury, staking rewards and a dedicated Axelar-remediation treasury. SNF never submitted the agreed proposals defining the amounts it wanted for either its operations or remediation. Instead, it stopped engaging with us and issued a counterproposal asserting that Labs had refused to act.
Why we voted No with Veto
We voted No with Veto on the previous SNF proposal (Proposal 361). We need to clarify that we did not veto the idea of continuing Secret as an L1.
The first SNF proposal purported to authorize the “recovery of Labs-associated tokens” and stated that, if Labs did not agree, SNF would pursue the decision through unspecified “other means.” We vetoed an attempt to appropriate assets that do not belong to SNF. That is fundamentally different from opposing L1 continuity or remediation.
The new proposal seeks a similar economic outcome through dilution. Its worked example reduces all existing holders collectively to 20% of the resulting supply and distributes the newly created majority among a new entity, validators, relayers, builders and remediation recipients. That may or may not be what holders want, but it should be described plainly.
Claims about Labs’ holdings
There is no hidden Labs majority, and SCRT Labs does not control anything close to a majority of the network. Our total current interest in SCRT is below 10%, a modest stake and nowhere close to a controlling interest.
Most SCRT Labs assets are publicly known and labelled. Smaller operational wallets exist for ordinary business purposes. The suggestion that Labs holds some unexplained, dominant interest in Secret is simply untrue.
Attempts to take control of other assets
There is also serious reason for concern that SNF has attempted to take control of other assets it does not own, and then publicly reversed the facts when challenged.
I created the Secret Network X account in 2015 under my own email address. SNF was given operational access to post through it, and I specifically made clear that this did not transfer ownership. SNF personnel then deliberately changed both the password and recovery email in an attempt to lock the owner out. After I appealed to X Support, the account was restored to me.
Lisa subsequently claimed that I had locked SNF out because I wanted to prevent her from publishing criticism. That is false. I recovered the account only after its credentials had been changed without authorization and I had been deliberately excluded from my own account.
The server dispute has been similarly misrepresented. Fluidefi, another company run by Lisa and her husband, hosted Labs-owned equipment. Our usual contact stopped responding to us in May. After repeated unanswered attempts to communicate, Labs sent a standard termination notice concerning the contractual breach and requested the return of its equipment. There were no personal threats against any Fluidefi personnel.
We are still waiting for a substantive response from Fluidefi and return of SCRT Labs’ assets.
These are not disagreements over tokenomics or governance. They concern control of property and accounts that SNF and Fluidefi do not own.
The broader campaign
Lisa, certain SNF personnel and related parties, have been conducting a smear campaign against SCRT Labs. This has been accompanied by the selective leaking and misrepresentation of information from private groups, false claims that Labs controls SNF, and the use and amplification of third parties to attack and intimidate Labs employees.
One individual receiving private information called SCRT Labs a “scam company,” encouraged community members to target employees, created AI-generated videos attacking them and their family members, publicly disclosed private information, discussed compiling employees’ identities and locations, and made statements about pursuing employees and their relatives.
This was not confined to an unofficial or unaffiliated group. A message encouraging people to identify and target Labs employees was pinned in the main Secret Network Telegram channel, which is owned and controlled by SNF. Material officially pinned in SNF’s principal community channel cannot reasonably be dismissed as the independent conduct of an unrelated third party.
Lisa has simultaneously portrayed Labs as the party issuing threats. The documented conduct tells a very different story.
We have preserved the relevant records and reserve all legal rights and remedies concerning company property, unauthorized account access, contractual breaches, confidentiality, harassment, publication of private information, threats and false factual statements. We will not litigate those matters through Telegram, but neither will we waive them or allow the underlying conduct to be rewritten publicly.
Questions the community should ask
Lisa’s proposal asks the community to finance a new entity that she would lead, relying expressly on her record of leading SNF for the past three and a half years. That makes SNF’s own record directly relevant.
Where are SNF’s financial reports for those years? How much funding did it receive, how was it spent, and what compensation was paid to its leadership? What engineering and operational capacity was built? What assets remain?
In August 2025, Lisa informed us that she was stepping back from active management and moving into an advisory role. To our knowledge, that change was not clearly disclosed to the community. What work did she perform after stepping back, and what salary or other compensation did she continue to receive?
SCRT Labs was supposed to hold a board seat at the Foundation. Yet for over a year, we were not invited to a board meeting, and we never received meaningful financial disclosures (or any at all). In practice, the basic governance, oversight, and transparency expected of a foundation managing community funds were never provided. In the absence of that reporting, we can only assume that substantial compensation continued to be paid, potentially including after Lisa stepped back from active management.
Before approving a massive mint, a continuing tax and a large allocation for another entity under the same leadership, holders should reasonably ask for complete financial statements, compensation disclosures, budgets, governance arrangements and a clear accounting of what SNF delivered during the previous three and a half years.
Where we stand
SCRT Labs has consistently tried to do right by Secret and its community. Our migration proposal reflected what we believed, and continue to believe, was the strongest available path toward a sustainable future for SCRT.
At the same time, it is clear that much of the remaining community wants to continue Secret as an independent L1. We welcome serious and ambitious proposals capable of making that path sustainable. SCRT Labs will step down from development and support of the L1 on September 1, and we would genuinely like to see capable and genuine people step forward and build what comes next.
What we cannot accept is for that transition to be pursued by bullying SCRT Labs and its employees, attempting to take our property, manufacturing inflammatory claims of hidden control, or rewriting the network’s history in order to justify a transfer of economic power under false pretenses.
Whether the latest proposal, or any future continuity proposal, is good or bad is for holders, validators and builders to decide. SCRT Labs will sit those decisions out. This statement is not an attempt to direct the outcome. It is simply our one response to a false public record that has increasingly been used to justify attacks against us.
We still believe in Secret’s underlying mission. We hope those who choose to continue the L1 can build something honest, transparent and sustainable, and that the community ultimately finds a path forward that serves its holders, builders and users.