Community Enforcement of Proposal #11322

Governance & Proposals
1

As a LUNC community we voted to pass #11322 to set the minimum validator commission to 5%.

I disagreed with this proposal and voted NO, hoping it would not pass. However, the proposal by Jebediah, Aperion Nodes, and co-signed by Bilbo (and others) did pass fair and square. They are welcome to post here to confirm these instructions for validators.

Therefore as a democratic system we have in LUNC the result must be obeyed, otherwise it shows disrespect to governance and weakens the authority of the chain. If validators who are looked up to by many in the community can scoff at governance, then how can LUNC have integrity in the eyes of its community and other investors.

If I was successful in passing my own proposal, I would expect the community to obey it, not drag their feet and make excuses. Therefore I will take an active stand in ensuring compliance with governance.

There are two methods of enforcement for #11322:

  1. Code.
  2. Community pressure.

This thread is the latter, and is to apply community pressure to gain validator compliance with #11322, that validators need to adjust their commissions to 5%.

There are only 3 out of 130 validators (0.023%) who cannot do this due to having already set their minimums under 5% when creating their validator, which is not their fault.

These are:
1% Max Fee 1.47% VP
Cryptonian 0.017% VP
Validarios 0.00% VP

The code to assist the 3 individual validators is by no means finalised, and according to Ed, will not be available this release (v1.1.0) or the next one, possibly putting this at up to a 2 month or longer delay.

Furthermore the L1 team is very busy working on important updates for LUNC, not to be pressured to write code urgently for something that is only needed for 3 small validators.

We can achieve voluntary compliance of 127/130 validators which is 97.7%. The code is for the 3 who can’t meet #11322’s requirements. The code is not for the rest. The code is being used as the excuse for some validators to drag their feet and enjoy economic advantage over other validators who complied with the communities vote and changed commission to 5%.

The whole purpose of the 5% minimum commission proposal was to have a level playing field at 5%, but validators are taking it for granted and are playing games.

The rest of the validators who have not moved to 5%, or are not in the process of moving, are at this point (10 days since #11322 passed) disrepecting the community.

Many validators have refused to comply with #11322 stating they will wait for code, which doesn’t apply to them. They are wrong and should obey governance now.

If they continue to refuse, the community should put them on notice they are disrespecting the communities voice. That is not acceptable.

The vote is in. #11322 passed. The governance has been decided. Validators, comply with #11322.

Here is the list below of those validators having 0.10% or above voting power, who have not complied with #11322 so far to raise their commission.

There is 21 validators on the list, and the list shows their name, voting power, current commission rate, and what they voted for on #11322. While what they voted for on #11322 does not mean they don’t have to comply, it provides more information to the community about that validator.

Please everyone in the community contact them and apply pressure and ask them to comply.

If they agree to change to 5% and start raising their commission, then they will be removed from the list when the list is updated next.

Orion 8.93% VP - 0% commission - voted Yes
Thor 8.25% VP - 0% commission - voted Yes
NITAWA 4.62% VP - 0% commission - voted Abstain
TerraCVita 2.88% VP - 0% commission voted Abstain
Crypto Plant 1.65% VP - 0% commission - voted Yes
CryptoKing 1.48% VP - 0% commission - voted Abstain
Safepoint 1.16% VP - 0% commission - voted Yes
LUX Blockchain 1.14% VP - 0% commission - voted Yes
Autism Staking 0.97% VP - 0% commission - did not vote
LunaClassic.com 0.91% VP - 0% commission - voted No
LUNC-Validator 0.89% VP - 0% commission - voted Yes
Target Nodes 0.68% VP - 0% commission - voted Yes
Stakesystems 0.58% VP - 1.8% commission - voted Yes
Luna Punks 0.52% VP - 0.69% commission - voted Yes
LuncLive 0.41% VP - 4% commission - voted No
OneStar 0.41% VP - 1.5% commission - voted Yes
8Moon 0.24% VP - 0% commission - voted Yes
Terradactyl 0.22% VP - 3% commission - did not vote
Crypto Genesis 0.17% VP - 0% commission - voted Yes
Billionairebet 0.15% VP - 0% commission - did not vote
Peace-Freedom 0.14% VP - 0% commission - voted Yes

2 Likes
2

Screenshot_20230223-004835_Chrome
Screenshot_20230223-004835_Chrome720Ă—1128 177 KB

1 Like
3

The only thing that interests me is that the tokens have some utility. Currently I do nothing with the Lunc in possession. Luna is moving throughout the cosmos while Lunc is useless and there is no progress

4

As the great Jebediah, AKA fake Rabbi, AKA echel0n would say when he does not like a proposal outcome - only ever the latest proposal is valid! Go ahead and revoke by launching another to return it to whatever you want it to be… That’s the governance spirit we know!

1 Like
5

I voted NO for #11322, and support a repeal of #11322, which is part of my validator roadmap, but in the meantime all validators should obey the communities vote, and not make a mockery of governance, and change promptly their commissions to 5%.

Their proposal got passed fair and square. I’m not about to immediately put up another vote. It takes the community time to see the effects of a proposal (e.g minting took time to overturn).

I hope the community will remember those who chose to gain economic advantage over other validators who complied, while using code as an excuse which is only needed for 3. If they change promptly after being reminded they need to comply, it will show they are willing to respect governance and the community.

If they remain obstinate and refuse, delaying and waiting the up to 2 months or more before a code change to comply, then they should certainly be remembered for their inappropriate behaviour.

2 Likes
6

Nobody on this list has changed their commission whatsoever 15 days after prop #11322 passed. Pretty sad.

So much for respecting the community and governance.

These validators won’t care unless people redelegate their LUNC from them to other validators.

Why not choose a validator who has complied with #11322?

Screenshot_20230223-003456_Chrome
Screenshot_20230223-003456_Chrome688Ă—813 157 KB

1 Like
7

Here’s an update from Trev speaking to Zaradar from the L1 team about the code on this issue for the 5% minimum:

Even with code they cannot force validators to change their commission.

NEWS FLASH: voluntary is the only way so hurry up and stop delaying and change your validator commissions to 5%. You can’t use code as the excuse anymore.

Do what the community in prop #11322 voted for. It’s now 16 days since the vote passed governance. Comply with the vote by the LUNC community.

1 Like
8

This is what happens when community aproves prop that can’t be enforced (like the multisig assets to CP prop way back in the day).

9

Why should delegators of validators undelegate if they continue to offer 0% commission?
Why should one limit oneself?
There are enough people who were against it and still hold that opinion, why should they be convinced to change just because the majority of validators were for it?
It is well known that most delegators are only there to earn rewards and therefore do not participate in voting. If they did, this proposal would never have won.
Furthermore, one can argue from a competition perspective that such a proposal is absurd and attacks the free market, which justifies not joining the proposal from that perspective as well.
Either it is implemented through code or one must accept that not everyone will participate.

I will redelegate my stake if my validator increases their commission, and I think other delegators will do the same. That’s how competition and a free market work.
Anyone who seeks to attack a free market must live with the fact that others will not take responsibility for it.

1 Like
10

If purely financial gain is your only parameter, then you are welcome to continue to stay with 0% commission. That’s your choice.

I voted NO on prop #11322 because I believe it is an unreasonable restriction on the free market.

However, as it passed community governance it should be obeyed.

It’s like a government passes a law but the political parties don’t obey it.

The validators have the most responsibility and should honour the communities vote, and voluntarily change to 5%.

We can see now they cannot be forced to change, and can continue to sit at 0% to gain voting power from other validators who complied with #11322.

If communities members like yourself solely care about profit on your rewards, and do not care if validators make a mockery of our governance system by not complying, then this behaviour will continue.

If the validator says, “I can’t be forced, I’ll stay at 0%”, and the community is okay with that, and does not undelegate from them to punish them financially, then the present situation will continue.

My position is that all validators should obey #11322. If they do not want to obey, put a vote up to repeal it, and if that passes then the prop is gone. Until that time it should be obeyed.

This prop is being worked on and has not been abandoned, and is possible to achieve, you can see the updates in its own thread.

11

Like you said, it’s been worked on… but there was no way to enforce previous signers to deliver the funds to the CP (in fact, all they were willing to do was handle the keys to new signees, the “funds to CP” was another initiative among the TR cash grab narrative)

12

I believe those signers have agreed to transfer to new signers, and according to the prop, they are asking validators to find signers who would agree, and sorting out legal issues. I think there are other issues with how to convert the ETH into LUNC before going to CP. A big difficulty, but by no means impossible or a futile proposal IMO. I think the prior proposal which gave 5k per month to many people who controlled the $ was much worse. If this can happen in time having the funds in the CP is best.

13

We could have those assets in the community hands as we speak if the “prior proposal” came to be (it never turned into an actual governance prop due to the rift it caused, and several cash-grabbing attempts based on “trust TR, bro” followed) … to late to cry over spilled milk though

2 Likes
14

Idealistic yes, practically no. The small validators won’t stand a chance. If we enforce it, we just gonna see less validators around.

1 Like