we need a leader and a dev team can help
implement burn now , what is your ideal ?
1 Like
New buyers of LUNA according to the governance documents are suppose to be members of the community - that is not a statement on governance attack, but to point out the process that was outlined.
The one area that was halted though to prevent a governance attack was new staking - there was concern that the blockchain, which uses proof of stake, could be harmed by malicious actors due to the much lower prices of LUNA. This was not done by vote however which is concerning - but since it had an emergency impact on proof of stake, and I think they were thinking that it would be very temporary while they worked to repeg UST (which it has now become more than a short period of time), they made the change.
I did not realize until today, but this has an impact on voting since you need to have staked LUNA to be able to vote (or at least to have it count). I have tried to do a stake delegation myself, and either the fees are really high (like I did not have enough), or this change is still in place. So, if you did not already have staked LUNA (unless they have reversed the temporary change) - then voting would be one area of governance that a person would not able to participate in.
I hope that helps out.
3 Likes
Exactly, I am not angry because of the death spiral. I knew such risk before I made my investment and it would happen according to the white paper. However, disabling staking and voting and fork another chain to compensate others without approval of the current Luna/UST holder is a r*g pull to me, probably also illegal.
3 Likes
I totally agree with you and it is also very important for Terraâs reputation
1 Like
Is there anyone that can make a proposal to allow staking and governance again? Maybe that could pass quickly and allow new users to vote? Iâm just thinking of any way to not let the fork pass since itâs not what the majority wants. I get the risk of governance attacks but to me this proposal IS a governance attack.
2 Likes
I have attempted to propose a solution, proposal 1385, but it was removed from the main governance page. Although the proposal is a catch-22 [Iâm unable to vote on my own proposal.] it still has merit.
IMO: DK should not take to Twitter and encourage people to vote on proposals, without providing a disclaimer that describes new buyers of LUNA are excluded.
2 Likes
Yes I completely agree. Kwon should not be able to promote his own proposal and no one elseâs. Not to mention only tweeting those that support him and also putting in the proposal for validators to publicly support him. Flat out wrong.
3 Likes
A desire to disenfranchise new buyers so they can get ripped off is a disqualification from any leadership role in the future of LUNA. It sounds like you even support the rugfork; do you?
LUNA is based on the principle that 1 LUNA = 1 LUNA. LUNA is fungible. All LUNAs are equal. Otherwise, it is not a currency (a matter with serious implications beyond the scope of this post, which I will discuss elsewhere). And itâs LUNA, not âClassic LUNAâ.
That said, if you are only adverse to the interests of ânee biyersâ, then I guess thatâs fine. I hope so. Your desire to re-peg UST speaks well of you, although I doubt the feasibility of that in case of a rugfork.
FIRST, I represent both old and new interests equally.
The current governance system is that the only Validators get the vote. Not general holders of LUNA itself, even though itâs a governance token. A system I donât support.
FACT. There currently cannot be new validators. This move was done to protect both LUNA & UST from further dilution and and a 51 attack.
HENCE, why I agree with it. In this, and only this case and why new holders cannot vote. Itâs due to a technical reason, enacted for the saftey of the system.
I generally DISAGREE with anyone not getting a vote and if you READ my plan you would see that instead of only validators voting, (which as you can see some of their views do not align with the community as they are voting for the ârugforkâ), I plan to make every holder of LUNA (Classic) able to vote.
And NO I do not support this rugfork or itâs distribution methods AT ALL!!! That said As long as my plan, or a similar plan gets put in place for LUNA Classic, then it is less destructive to our community and will not affect our success in the future tbh.
You can read many posts I have made detailing my hatred of this fork. No one seems to like the forking plan and even my twitter poll had it a 93% disagreeing with the fork.
3 Likes
After 1B new coins, what will be the starting value of new Terra coin, 0.000005? Anyone? We still dont know where $1.5B in reserves went.
They should change the âOKâ button to âLOLâ. I am accumulating a nice collection of these.
Upon eliding the forbidden word, I tried to repost:
So, failed attempts to post count towards the âslow modeâ limit. Nice.
Smooth, professional response to erroneous criticism is how leaders convert critics into supporters.
I apologize for having misunderstood you on so fundamental an issue. I did skim your proposal, but I didnât read it thoroughly. I should have, before opining; but please do realize, itâs competing for attention with an awful lot here. Iâll review it again later. I did see that you wanted to poll people for their opinions of the rugfork. Thanks for so unequivocally declaring your position here!
I think that what is really at issue here is a question of community norms. Communities always have norms of behavior that everyone knows is wrong, just wrong. Murder, theft, other serious crimesâreasonable people never even debate whether these are acceptable. Such matters are not open to debate. Nobody holds a poll asking, âShould the legislature legalize murder and stealing?â
The irrevocability of the ledger is a community norm for Bitcoinâand not only for Bitcoin. It is the norm for every major coinânot only that, but for every coin thatâs not a total sâtcoin like Juno.
Ethereum has also moved in that direction. Their 2016 DAO hardfork was extremely controversial, it fractured their community, and it made many people distrust their chain (including me). They may have learned their lesson. In 2018, a proposal to hardfork and save >$150 million worth of stranded funds from Parity wallet was shot down flat and withdrawn.
To be clear, EIP-999 would not have redistributed any value from some people to others. It would only have released money that had become permanently stuck. Parity wallet was buggy trash that let anyone irretrievably delete a necessary on-chain component. EIP-999 would have let Parity users reclaim their own walletsâthatâs it! But it was meddling with the blockchain. The Ethereum communityâs answer was a resounding no.
Post #5 on the EIP-999 discussion thread was especially good, by user âx-ETHeREAL-xâ:
This is a specific request to restore a single self-destructed contract? How many people have made mistakes that cost them ETH? Allowing case-by-case proposals for mistake reversals is a terrible idea and opens up all kinds of concerns about picking winners and losers (and who gets to pick). When any person or group is able to pick winners and losers, you inevitably get corruption, bribery, etc. This would set a terrible and dangerous precedent. Parity/Polkadot has a lot to gain from this being accepted â how much would they rationally be incentived to offer in direct bribes and/or indirect social media manipulation to help get this passed? Maybe they wouldnât do this and are good actors, but it cannot be assume others would be. This needs to be condemned as a class of proposals that open the door to massive corruption, not merely as an individual proposal.
(Underscore the part about incentives to offer âdirect bribes and/or indirect social media manipulationâ!)
Seeing that type of response from the Ethereum community was what made me relax a little bit towards Ethereum. It helped to restore some of the trust lost by the DAO hardfork. I still dislike ETH for various reasons; but on an issue of prime importance, their community showed strong principles as quoted above.
Here and now, upon the same principles:
Those who stand against the rugfork have the moral high ground. They must not let the rugforkers reframe the discussion to suit a swindle. Hardforking to redistribute value is a repudiation of all that is meant by the word âblockchainâ. This includes the shell game of a new sâtcoin designed to suck value away from the coins that people bought.
People who donât get this are anti-cryptocurrency, period. They are the greedy idiots for whom âblockchainâ is a buzzword that means âprofits TO THE MOONâ. They are the types who expect to get rich quick buying coins they donât understand, all based on what they saw on Twitter and Youtube. They donât care what they buy, as long as the number goes upâand if it goes down, they may demand a refund! They are toxic to any community.
Attention Rugforkers: If you donât want for the blockchain to be an irrevocable record of who owns what, then get the hell out of crypto, and go open a bank account. Thatâs what you want: An account under the watchful eye of a central authority, who can change things to fix what you perceive as a mistake. The blockchain was invented to get rid of that. You do not want âblockchainâ.
LUNA dilution was just the system doing what it said on the tin. I donât know why anyone complains about it: They didnât complain when high UST demand was burning LUNA, but they are upset when itâs time to pay the piper. If the peg hadnât been abandoned, then the obvious solution to excess LUNA supply would be to make a UST that works: Then, demand for UST would burn LUNA again!
I will here address the 51% attack part:
I admittedly donât yet well enough understand Terraâs internals to opine on that. Only >50% is needed? Other POS chains I know better would need >2/3 of the stake to rollback the blockchainâand some of them have a sort of circuit breaker that will panic and halt the network in that case.
Regardless, it shows a fundamental, unavoidable, irreparable flaw in POS.
In POS, a large enough economic attack on the coin translates directly into a consensus-layer security flaw; and an economic failure of the coin translates directly to a consensus security failure. In POW, an economic attack on the coin only slowly, indirectly affects consensus securityâhashpower must sooner or later decrease, when miners cannot profit. To gain hashpower, you need to spend real resources: You cannot obtain cheap ASICs and electricity from a cryptocoin market crash. To gain the equivalent in POS, you only need to buy or borrow a volatile virtual assetâan asset which, in this case, suddenly lost >99.9999% of its value within hours. ASICs and electricity donât do that.
This is not the first time that the POS concept has catastrophically failed on a grand scale. Remember the hostile takeover of Steem. This is even worse, much worse.
2 Likes
The 51 attack concern I believe would be more akin to that of a hostole takeover, or other malicious attack on the chain itself, for monetary or destructive purposes.
Simply put up some proposal, and with a second account (you canât vote on your own proposal), you vote on it and 50+% makes it successful. The breakdown would be 40% for quarum, and 50+% pass threshold.
HOWEVER, there is what I believe is called a poison pill in that if the no with veto vote reaches 33.4%, then it fails. This is where having 2/3âs would be more accurate to be successful. I think we always just called it a 51 attack when in fact its really a 67 attack? (2/3âs+).
This is my understanding.
One important parameter which I think Do should do is to get engaged with the exchanges again and give confidence to the exchanges so that UST/Luna will not be removed. It takes a lot of effort to rebuild the listing channel to open to more mass traders.