Alternative Joint L1 taskforce Q2 idea

I would like to suggest the following changes to the current L1 Taskforce Q2 budget and encourage a healthy discussion about this in agora.

Community feedback is important for continued changes and in no way will this be a finalised budget as I would also like feedback from Professor Edward Kim and the core contributors to make it robust and to make us an unstoppable force.

Community members (like i) do not have a fully clear picture of what is happening in the background so these changes are here for consideration of the people mentioned above and other people mentioned within the “proposal”.

To be able to onboard new talent into our ecosystem and to try and ensure we have the best benefits for the chains revival I would like to put forward the below.

Currently we have only one team working on the chain and although they have done a fantastic job so far, I believe there are some things that could be improved to enable it to run more effectively.

I would like to suggest that we allow new developers to contribute under a “trial” situation so the community can view new work and ideas can hopefully flourish.
Collaboration is the key to success however with the current structure.

Many members of the community have raised concerns about both Tobias Anderson (Zaradar) and Jacob Gadikian so for the time being I have eliminated both developers from the proposal.

Core Team
The core team will continue to contribute coding and idea development while also reviewing the code from the “trial” team to ensure it is up to standards and we are not implementing code with errors. With the extra responsibilities of overseeing a new team I have included pay rise for the below developers.

  • 1 part time developer (Superman) at a rate of $7k USD per month

  • 1 part time developer (Till) at a rate of $7k USD per month

  • 1 part time developer (Vinh) at a rate of $7k USD per month

Trial Team

The Trial team will contribute to coding and idea development for this Quarter.

  • 1 part time developer (Bilbo Baggins) at a rate of $5k USD per month

  • 1 part time developer (NotJoshC) at a rate of $5k USD per month

  • 1 part time developer (MangoChutney) at a rate of $5k USD per month

  • 1 part time developer (ChopstickSensei) at a rate of $5k USD per month

  • 1 part time developer (SolidSnake) at a rate of $0 USD per month (this developer has advised they will trial for free)

Group Opex Budget - $6k per quarter

We already know the core team’s ability but who are the trial team what are their qualifications?

Bilbo Baggins – Senior software engineer/architect

NotJoshC – Senior developer

Mango Chutney – Senior developer

ChopstickSensei – Senior developer

SolidSnake – Senior developer

I would also like to suggest that the road map outlined in LuncBurnArmys Proposal be adhered to with the change of focus from

Finalize L1 Dojo - Path of the Expert and replace this with USTC Staking.

This would mean to Road map would look like this currently although with the extra developers there could possibly be time to add new items to the agenda.

April, 2023

  • Finalize pre-release testing of Core v2.0.0 on testnet and bump to “release”

  • Finalize pre-release testing of Oracle-Feeder v2.0.4 on testnet and bump to “release”

  • Prepare Terra.js v2.0.0 pre-release & ensure peer review

  • Bump Terra.js v2.0.0 to “release” state and push changes upstream to TFL so they can prepare new NPM packages

  • Prepare Terra.proto v2.0.0 pre-release & ensure peer review

  • Bump Terra.proto v2.0.0 to “release” and coordinate NPM packages with TVC

  • Work with TCV to patch GUI assets (Station, extension, mobile) with new Terra.js v2.0.0 NPM package

  • Work with existing validators to expand the testnet to a targeted 30% of the validator set . All existing validators are requested to keep an identical configuration of their production instance available for scheduled “release testing” on the testnet.

  • Schedule v2.0.0 upgrade on mainnet and provide on-call support during scheduled chain-halt.

  • Review and update product backlog for L1 team

  • Renew “community oversight committee” for L1 team, going out to vote for new committee members.

May, 2023

  • Integrate FeeShare module from Juno for release in v2.1.0

  • Finalize CosmWasm upgrade and prepare “migration documentation” for L2 developers.

  • Finalize pre-release testing of Core v2.1.0 on testnet and bump to “release”

  • Schedule v2.1.0 upgrade on mainnet and provide on-call support during scheduled chain-halt.

  • Finalize Terra Operator v0.0.1

  • Overhaul CI (continuous integration) workflows

  • Establish experimental network to host daily release for “vNext” (main branch)-Investigate the addition of Interchain Accounts (ICA part of IBC) module

  • Establish IBC to Kujira

June, 2023

  • Develop a two-year high-level technology roadmap for Terra Classic (Q3 2023 => Q3 2025)

  • Venture into implementation of USTC Staking

  • Assess migration path for Tendermint => CometBFT

  • Review on-ramp technologies for Classic Station and develop proof-of-concept

  • Prepare Q3 budget and agora proposals

I would also like to add in the following stipulation due to past events.

Contractors must conduct themselves in a professional manner.

This means whether you are commenting on your personal social media or not - you are the faces of our community - the following will not be tolerated by the community.



*Gross negligence

*F raud

*Misrepresenting factual information

  • Harassment of other organizations or individuals


*Aggressive or intimidating behaviour

*Threats of violence

Although as a community i do not believe we would want to micromanage anybody’s behaviour - it has become apparent that we do need to ensure that our L1 taskforce as the faces of our chain should act in a professional and factual manner.

What would the total spend be for the Q2?

this saves us $10,500 from the original LBA proposal while increasing the total number of developers from 4 to 8!

What about community outreach/project manager roles?

Bilbo Baggins has volunteered to publish information to the community in an organised way.

Although AMA’s are always positive not everybody can attend or participate – if the information was published with a comment section this serves the same purpose but allows everybody to access the information.

As we have so many seasoned developers on the team the role of project manager is a luxury role that is no essential to the running of the teams.

In the current situation and limited resources this money should be used to continue to onboard developers who are essential.

What about junior developer roles?

I also agree that investing in future developers is essential however at this point in time we do not have the funding to do this.

I would like to encourage people to volunteer to help for the learning experience and for future potential roles at a later date once their skillset is more robust and work can be proven.

If the two previous junior developers would like to continue, they will be split between the teams.

Closing remarks.
If this proposal passes and any of the developers listed above refuse to accept money or do work then the money will be put back into the community pool.

If any of the Opex budget is not spent, then this will roll over to the next Q or if the teams are abandoned be returned to the community pool.

Distribution of payments will happen at the end of every calendar month given the appropriate milestones have been achieved, approval from the oversight committee, and approval from the Terra Grants Foundation signers of the multisig.
The multi-sig wallet from the Terra Grants Foundation is controlled by Ed, Marco, and Jagamot (Allnodes)

While this is an independent proposition i would like to ask TGF to assist with reports, community engagement and accountability.

I thank you all for your time and hope we can continue our amazing journey.



The code of conduct section I 100% agree with! :+1:

The roadmap I can’t comment on because I’m not a dev, but for the sake of argument let’s say it’s OK.

As for the dev team(s), you gotta talk to @Bilbo and the other devs about what they want and how they’ll structure their team stack. Also like I’ve mentioned on the Discord, Frag and Vinh aren’t senior devs, they can’t helm the core team (and Superman is still AWOL). :man_shrugging:

Tobias’s Dojo idea is just an internal wiki copy-pasted from Cosmos docs, there’s no point wasting time on that. And USTC staking is its own beast - it’ll probably require at least 2 devs to fund the work so they can design, develop, test, reiterate, and ship it (as such, it shouldn’t be tied to an L1 team/proposal, and must be submitted separately as its own project).

The opex budget is also something that may not be needed… if it is, it should be submitted as its own prop - better to do that, than take money which isn’t used and then depend on having it returned to the community pool. :man_shrugging:

Anyway, thanks for putting this up Pholuna, it’s obvious you’ve given it a lot of thought! :+1:

Shalom! :pray:


Just fyi
Although i am also aware that ustc staking is not something that has been done before this is something that developer Bilbo Baggins has been looking into which is why i have included it in the proposal as an idea of something to look into.
I am not a developer and do not have the knowledge to know if this is possible.

I also cannot know whether the road map is the right eay to go but i am sure the team would be able to come to an agreement?

I have took all the information i have been told and both proposals into consideration merley to try to establish some sort of compromised solution that doesnt negativly impact the chain.

As stated this is in no way a completed proposal

Thank you :blush:


Feeback from twitter to take into consideration

It’s in no way a completed proposal and any questions and feedback are vital.
Superman knows the chain better than anyone we are going to get (as long as there is no truth to the rumors of awol)

The new developers this is the trial period and all their code would be double checked.

I don’t know if it would need this many developers as I am not a developer

So these points would need to be taken into consideration


It has been confirmed that Supermam has been MIA for a month so ammendments would need to be made in this respect.

If he decides to come back at some point i am sure he will be welcomed back with open arms :blush:

At this point it would reduce the core trusted team to 2 members

The overall team to 7

And spend to to $108,000

(Doesnt allow edits to posts while in slow mode so could not adjust the original)


Stop talking to yourself Rabbi.


Are you accusing me of being Rabbi?

If so you are incorrect


Are you accusing me of being Rabbi?

If so you are incorrect


Are mentally alright? Not everyone is rabbi if you spent time in this community you would have known this.


Shalom :pray:


Unfortunately he is just hellbent on reducing everybody else’s proposals to rubble because he wasn’t hired for Rabbi’s one.

And now for good reason - he would have been hugely destabilising to everything. As he is demonstrating now.


I think before resources are provided the work to be done needs to be quantified. Also after the Q2 road map the amount of L1 devs needed for more of a maintenence role would reduce.
I would actually suggest that a larger team like this would be in more need for a project manager (coordinator) than the previous L1 team.
Thank you for taking the time to write your proposal.


I don’t think a project manager would be a luxury.
Even seasoned devs benefit from having a project manager they can use to help them in their daily work. A good project manager can help them improve their productivity and be a pivot in the team. I would reconsider this point.
Saving on this would result in increasing the cost.

1 Like

The best idea is too start working on new infrastructure include a separation or independence from any other asset ! Just give that job to all available groups of devs. who are ready to take it off course they should working as team and not as enemies !

1 Like

I honestly don’t. :man_shrugging: What happened?

1 Like

Its not quite a proposal
It was a way to look at things differently than the current proposals and to try to find some compromise between them with community feedback also introduced :+1:

There is no best idea. We are a community with many ideas.
Some good ideas, and some less so.
Some ideas can be quick wins, whilst others long term outcomes.
Some ideas are complimentary whilst others are less so.

Some believe the immediate focus should like you be total separation from TFL.
Some believe the immediate focus should be to burn hell out of LUNC.
Some believe the immediate focus should be to reach parity.
Some believe the immediate focus should be to repeg a stable coin.


Non-technical random folks on Tweeter: We don’t need more devs on this chain.

I counter with this:

Just a random article explaining it in human words why it matters.


Good luck with that. I’ve been trying for months to explain to the community that we should be treating LUNC like a startup and aggressively scaling upwards if we’re gonna meet the next bullrun ready.

Yet most people seem to believe it’s enough having 3-4 devs. :man_shrugging:

There is a MOUNTAIN of work that needs doing on LUNC. Even 20 devs wouldn’t be enough.


With this amount of money supply, a bullish rally can be quite dangerous. The current price of an asset is determined solely by the volume traded on the CEX. If we reach parity with USTC, large profit-taking will begin. It will be a fiasco. We need controlled growth, correlated with volume burning. Without the collusion of the CEX, this is not feasible. Growth should be linear, if possible

1 Like