A compromise pertaining to $4Million community assets and a controlling committee

Summary Proposal:
-Reach a compromise between various proposals and community sentiment re: Ethereum Crosschain TC Community Assets and a controlling body.
-Address community concerns in these debates
-Assure community representation in any governing body elected or appointed

Proposal Ideas
Since it seems everyone is coming around to the idea of a governing body of trusted professionals who are capable of making decisions pertaining to the development of the Terra Classic chain, I thought I would put my ideas in writing and add them to the mix.

This idea was originated by Alex Forshaw with his agora proposal on 28th of October. The idea was met with various objections and concerns regarding a self appointed governing body. The ideas I will, express here are meant to alleviate some of those concerns, while still preserving the logic of an oversight committee.

My recommendation would be that we elect (8) people to this panel. Not (6). Not (9). Reasons for the specific number will become apparent later.
I further suggest that we select a date by which potential candidates for this committee can I submit their candidacy on TerraStation for a vote. Each text proposal submitted by a potential candidate, should contain all pertinent information that they wish to relay to the community regarding why they should serve. As there is a fee for submitting a proposal on TerraStation, random agitates would be dissuaded from mucking up the process with farcical proposals.
Voting would proceed as normal, and a candidate would only need to reach quorum to progress to the final vote, which would be held on the following week. This should severely narrow the field. In the unlikely event there are not eight candidates who reach quorum, the candidates who came closest to reaching it would complete the (8) and we would have our committee members. Should we have more than eight candidates reach quorum those candidates would go on to the final election, which would be a top eight total votes scenario.
We can attempt to reach a consensus on how long a term committee members would serve before they needed to be elected again, but I would suggest we did this yearly. I believe it would also be prudent to install a function which allows for a majority vote of the committee to call for an emergency election regarding a bad actor/disruptive force scenario or a situation where someone is unable to fulfill their term.

TC Community Ethereum Crosschain Assets
It has been suggested that this money, approximately $4.16 million worth, should be converted to LUNC and kept in the community pool. I believe we should consider the still volatile nature of LUNC, and look to a more stable asset. This is not to suggest a lack of confidence in Terra Classic but an acknowledgment of the current reality. As far as where these assets are stored, I suppose that is up for debate, but I would suggest we consider a specific wallet​ designated for these funds. Allocation of assets, to or from this wallet would need to be governed by a smart contract, which is activated by a majority 5 out of 8 vote. It could be a security risk for any member, or former member of the committee to have access to the keys. Hopefully smarter people than I could figure out the way to do this.

The committee should not have unlimited power to utilize these funds solely on their vote. I would suggest that we set a dollar amount, possibly somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000 which would be a cap for what can be voted on by the committee. Anything above whatever dollar amount the community decides on would have to be presented to the community via an Over Budget Proposal (OBP). I’m sure this number would be hotly debated assuming any of this seems a logical path. Just bear in mind that the lower that number the slower the process as we would be getting more and more proposals to be voted on before moves could be made to grow the network thereby negating the purpose of the committee in the first place.

Over Budget Proposals
Proposals submitted to the community for approval above the agreed upon $ amount would be voted on by the community as well as the committee. As it seems logical that the elected committee would have a greater knowledge and awareness of the inner workings of the chain and development progress I would recommend they hold 5% voting power each. With (8) committee members this totals 40% of the vote leaving 60% of the vote still in community control. This specific ratio is why I chose eight committee members as opposed to nine. And really, why was nine ever the correct number?

A Final Thought
As someone who is always concerned that the non technical and non finance engineer community is left out of the narrative I would strongly suggest a community liaison be part of this committee (in addition to the 8) . Although I have not discussed the subject of compensation for the committee here, as I believe that is an entirely separate subject and possibly putting the cart before the horse, I would think that this community liaison position would also be compensated although voting ability should be the same as any other community member, i.e. one vote. Think of this position as the conscience of the group. A person to keep the group grounded in a community first outlook and who holds no allegiance to any particular faction or perspective (unbiased).

In Conclusion
The idea is to maximize the decentralization of Terra Luna Classic by including, as much as possible, the community in the selection of who leads it and in what capacity. I humbly submit these ideas for your consideration and welcome your constructive criticism.
Thanks for taking the time to read.
DJ Trev


Thanks for taking the time to put together these thoughts. I think there are a lot of good ideas here. This appalling messy process, sprawling across different platforms may actually lead to a sane, community developed, approach to governance. Let’s keep pushing in this direction.


I thinking about burning LUNC a lot… The Terra blockchain could introduce a code to ‘put the serial number’ or somekind of ‘mark’ for each LUNC coin. This ‘mark’ or serial number means that this coin was already taxed. For example, every LUNC would have to acquire a serial number (or a specific mark) within a year, otherwise it would be withdrawn from circulation and marked as a ‘false’ LUNC (hardfork mybe needed). Obtaining the serial number or mark could only take place via the blockchain, where an appropriate tax (burn tax??) would be charged. In this way, absolutely every owner would have to tax their coins if want to suporting LUNC project and don’t want his coins to be removed from circulation (or hardforked? ). This rull (code) would be democratic voted via proposal from the comunity. I am not specialist, but maybe this way we can apply burn tax equally for everyone? It is strict but fair to all, who want to contribute to the project. ‘NO PAIN, NO GAIN !’ What do you think, would that work?

This does’t really pertain to the subject of my proposal

Can be good if there is no others way around, i still prefer a grant scheme pool style over a dev pools liquidity, we arent forced to move the full 4.16 million but 25% of it or 50% and leave the remaining doing money in their ETH pools, hopefully market recover much more by the time we spend the current 25-50%. But yes you way is fair if we get stuck to go that way.


I’m all for it, a commonsense proposal and community liaison position absolutely is needed!

1 Like

I agree Peter. The comments should be represented by someone from its ranks, not another coder or developer.


Agree with the election method.

I would like to highlight the following as well.

In order to promote a healthy and competitive community environment, a proper management team is needed to be in control.

I personally thinks that a monthly meeting needs to be conducted between the elected person (e.g. 8 person) and a neutral management (NM) person to discuss openly on the ideas, feedbacks, comments, suggestions, etc. by the communities. The NM is chosen by the community as well. Purpose of this meeting is to help the team to understand each other works as well as brainstorming for contributing to the community’s success.

NM shall be leading the meeting to ensure everything is in control and all subjects are address in the meeting. A secretary shall be chosen by NM to write down the meeting minutes in which shall be published to the community for transparency and recording purpose.

If any parties found that the elected NM is playing favors to any specific person or team, they can bring this matter up with a 3 out of 8 votes. If after the discussion, a voting session among the elected members shall be conducted. If the votes is 5 out of 8 votes. The NM shall be replaced with a new NM elected by the community within two weeks (via new election).

1 Like

This would more or less be the role of the community liaison in my proposal. However this person would be a constant influence and monitor of internal goings-on.

The issue here is the following. On a general level your proposal makes sense and sense. But there are issues that cannot be avoided or controlled, even though in theory it may seem that they can. Remaining outside the reach and information of the community. Anyone who has worked in public spheres and occupied any role in the state, whether national or local, will understand the following:

On the one hand, You can not control the management of funds by putting as a limit a certain amount as you propose. Of 100K or 200k. Because in practice what is done is to divide by stages of work. For example. You want to do the re-peg of USTC with fresh funds. This concretion that in its totality costs, for example, 1.6M dollars is subdivided into 8 stages. So that in this way it does not go through a community vote. So you say that the general plan consists of 8 stages and you are going to start with the first one which has a budget of 200k and therefore the council will decide the plan to follow and the people to contract. Without making any proposal and budget to the community. Everything is centralized and the community vote is avoided. It is as simple as that.

So never will the committee of 8 submit proposals that exceed 200k. They will make partial submissions to get their hands on the management and discretion of the funds that the community gave them the power to use without consultation. “Because they are the ones who know…”.

On the other hand, A given number of people lends itself to being coerced by external economic groups to perform certain actions to further their interests. A small group of people can be attacked in various ways to perform certain tasks. And even if they do not want to do so, they will do so if their lives or those of their loved ones are at risk. On the other hand, you cannot move in the same direction in a group of millions of people. You can’t directly manage and control them. Only persuade. But not force them.

In short, these two points are the weaknesses that one has in the “practice” and not in the theory of a theoretical ideal scheme.

I appreciate and value this proposal for the good intention it has. But in practice something else will happen.

1 Like

So you say that the general plan consists of 8 stages and you are going to start with the first one which has a budget of 200k and therefore the council will decide the plan to follow and the people to contract. Without making any proposal and budget to the community. Everything is centralized and the community vote is avoided.”
Valid point and I had considered this. The simple fix is to require the limit to apply to the projected project total. Of course, the committee could always lie but then that’s what re-elections are for. The threat of losing their positions would hopefully deter these types of deceptions. Not to mention the point that we’d be voting in people hopefully with a track record of honesty and transparency.

A small group of people can be attacked in various ways to perform certain tasks. And even if they do not want to do so, they will do so if their lives or those of their loved ones are at risk.”
I find this consideration to be a bit extreme. I mean you’re really reaching here to find potential hazards. Those who chose to be a part of this committee would do so of their own free will and could step down at any time should they feel unable or unwilling to fulfill their duties.
I appreciate your feedback but I don’t agree these would be likely issues.


Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, in the real world this happens all too often. We are talking about people, who take a legal or financial role, must be verified and have a legal address. Therefore, what I mention above could be perfectly possible. I have seen it happen several times to good people. And who have resigned (because they were forced to) or changed their way of being overnight. Money, threats, and traps to defame are regular when a business sector takes business away from the big ones. Unfortunately it is not extreme. It is real.

Thank you again. I appreciate this healthy debate.

1 Like

I just listened and watched your youtube reading of this proposal. I am surprisingly impressed with what you have put together here…
There comes a point in time when things just simply need to move on and go forward. We are there now. Time to make a move and your proposal is pretty straight forward, understandable and pretty logical in it’s scope… I want to commend you on your determination to make progress here.
I support your effort here…
Thank you…

1 Like

I think one of the pluses of your proposal is in it’s simplicity. And I believe it is best to leave it so…

1 Like

Thank you for your feedback and kind words. Now if I can just get more people to see it. Lol.

1 Like

By now… you are all watching… how this Vegas proposal ends. ​🙈​🙈​

That proposal and Alex’s proposal have the viewers gripped!!! hahahahahaha! ​😂​😂​😂​😂​😂​


Can’t miss it

1 Like

These are some good ideas, I might suggest a yearly budget put forward, and voted on by the community. If there were the case of an emergency distribution needed that also comes before the community, for approval or rejection. The community ambassador is a thought, I would just add to that all meetings by this oversight committee, would be open and publicly broadcast. That would help the ambassador stay out of any potential tight spots.

1 Like

The budget idea is some thing we will see in a proposal that should be released soon

Thanks for your thoughts and proposal, a lot of valid points…

I suggest a steering group made up of volunteers who get to be the sounding board of the ‘8-9’ self elected group, before putting any proposals out in to the community.

I’m a massive football fan, Liverpool FC is my club so to speak. When the Super-league was proposed without consultation with their fans. It nearly took down all the trust the current owners had built in turning around the fortunes of the club. So what then was created was a LFC supporters board which represented the fans. Made up of unpaid volunteers.

It’s something I strongly believe should happen with LUNC.

There are some really passionate and intelligent people who aren’t part of TR or any other organisations but have done a lot for the LUNC community in the background. Not looking for limelight or credit such making sure the community is protected against people with agenda that isn’t always pro the community.

Every now and again, I’ve tried to be the voice of reason… I am lucky to not be financially motivated as I have various ventures outside of crypto and believe sometimes ppl who do Pro Bono work as volunteers have the best interest of the community they represent…

Money corrupts…

I am a LUNC investor and have a proposal in the pipeline to bring in significant financial support to the LUNC community. But it is a structured, sophisticated product…

We are fighting over $4.16m where in reality LUNC needs billion dollar investments…

But it needs people who have real world commercial experience to bring those proposals to fruition.

The LUNC steering group needs cool heads, rational people… who can argue sensibly and see the full picture and not just be blinkered by their own ego and selfish needs…

1 Like