# Community Discussion: Bad Genesis Founding Member public keys

**URL:** <https://forums.minaprotocol.com/t/community-discussion-bad-genesis-founding-member-public-keys/5523>\
**Category:** Community\
**Created:** [January 27, 2022, 4:25am UTC](https://forums.minaprotocol.com/t/community-discussion-bad-genesis-founding-member-public-keys/5523 "2022-01-27T04:25:10Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![garethtdavies](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/user_avatar/forums.minaprotocol.com/garethtdavies/32/1224_2.png) [@garethtdavies](https://forums.minaprotocol.com/u/garethtdavies)\
**Post date:** [January 27, 2022, 6:48pm UTC](https://forums.minaprotocol.com/t/community-discussion-bad-genesis-founding-member-public-keys/5523/3 "2022-01-27T18:48:20Z")

</div>

Echoing eldeniz, I’d like to understand how these became corrupted and the distinction between these two keys and the other known to have been generated with the outdated keygen tool (which appears valid) ref: [What about Honest Validators that haven't met minimum Reward Requirements? - #34 by garethtdavies](https://forums.minaprotocol.com/t/what-about-honest-validators-that-havent-met-minimum-reward-requirements/5150/34)

It was my impression that keys generated with the outdated took produced seemingly valid keys (much like the second case). Or could these first two have been generated on very old tools?

From memory, as it was a long time ago now, I also remember the entire process of providing keys being halted and the opportunity given for members to resubmit their keys after this issue was identified. I also think we had a whole additional testnet just to verify these new keys were correct?

---

_[View the full topic](https://forums.minaprotocol.com/t/community-discussion-bad-genesis-founding-member-public-keys/5523)._