I would like to give my last detailed opinion on this proposal. Since the more time passes, the more evident is the false of what is proposed here. Let’s begin.
First things first.
First of all, I would like to clarify an important point that has been devalued in the debate.
There must be absolute respect for all the different faiths that exist in the community and in the world, each one is the master of his own destiny. The best thing to do is always to look at oneself and correct one’s own mistakes. Nobody is perfect.
DIVERSITY ENRICHES THE COMMUNITY. Here the religion that one professes is not a blank check of trust. Rather, each one as a person (whether Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Taoist, or any other creed) speaks through his actions and words. If a person is sincere, respectful and honest, he will be so, with anyone he has in front of him. He will not change. Both with those with whom he agrees and those with whom he disagrees. The sun shines and gives light to all equally. Thus a serene and sincere heart, gives its benevolence and virtue to everyone who needs it. Without looking at their outward appearance. And here, it seems to be, that many “say” they are trustworthy because of their specific creed, but their deeds and words do not correspond to it. Some examples.
Directed towards my comments. You can follow the whole thread of the conversation in the V1 version of this proposal.
Comments from the same “Rabbi” team to other people in the community who expressed differences with what was being proposed:
If you think about these comments, they are in the same way, “unacceptable” for the harmony and benefit of the community. This speaks more to who is saying it (a reflection of each person’s own self), rather than who is being referred to in an offensive or derisive manner.
The renown of teams or individuals is used to achieve their own desired objectives, to the detriment of the community.
Beyond the above that makes the integrity of people who claim to be but in their actions and words do not seem to fit in that sense, my vote for this proposal, CHANGED FROM NO to NO WITH VETO. The reason for this is detailed below.
This proposal not only does not lead to any benefit to the community, but the authors of this proposal demonstrate day by day a total lack of coherence and bad faith (unfortunately). They are trying to DRAG THE COMMUNITY BY RESORTING TO USING RECOGNIZED PEOPLE AND TEAMS (in order for the proposal to be validated), but who have clearly said they do not want to be in this proposal. They have only focused on their own goals, without listening to anyone in the community (not even those they claim to favor like TR and Alex). They resort to misleading “positive” comments that come from the same team or from “very new” accounts that days or hours ago have been registered in the Agora (as I demonstrate below).
The authors of this proposal turned a deaf ear to TR’s request, and to other requests made by the community, for more details of the plans and the destination of the funds (in a transparent and verifiable manner). There were, in turn, many empty congratulations (with no reference as to why they support) and presumably from the same proposing team or duplicate accounts. But there is not much real support from community users.
As the icing on the cake, there is the issue raised by Alex himself. Who also refuses to receive funds as payment for the past. But this team goes even further. Proposing extortive practices to “get Alex himself out of the way”. I’ll detail it later. Too much, isn’t it?
And yet another strawberry. They present a Binance donation wallet (as mentioned by a community user) or with very large funds to carry this proposal by itself. . As I said in the beginning, the deeper we go, the more holes we find.
This is the “supposed team” of people behind this proposal with their Binance donation wallet or very large!!!
We continue with what reXxTR and Alex said in the V1 and V2 version respectively. And where they say they don’t want the money for past work.
So “Rabbi” replies to Alex, that then they will make good use of his money. But in the final V3 of the proposal, Alex still appears as a beneficiary of the 1% (The answer to TR I mentioned in a comment in V1).
Previously Alex, gave his point of view.
Again, they mainly use the name TR to validate this nonsense proposal. And at the same time, they also use and denigrate Alex (who even though he has a bad reputation, he still deserves respect as any other human being). And as if that were not enough, they try to extort him, so that he disappears from Terra Classic. Only minds with bad habits and intentions can perform such acts and proposals.
They want to extort him and neutralize him:
They denigrate him:
These extortive practices (which can only come from a heart with bad habits in the use of money), are, in turn, impossible to comply with. Since anyone can have multiple users, or act under the user of someone else who agree in the way of thinking. Alex, you can’t leave, because someone is simply paying you. It is ridiculous and promulgates bad habits in the use of money. It is dishonest money management. And no respect for others.
As we see so far it is all about manipulation, refusing to take out TR and Alex and attacking those who think differently.
This is not worthy of men and women who claim to honor God.
It was stated to make changes in favor of the community (as a great theater), but in reality, it is in favor of the proposing group.
In proposal V1, the “rabbi” said in a comment of his, that he was going to take into account what “the community” said to improve or complement his original proposal. But instead, he used only a “community tells me” screen, to introduce legal paragraphs (which at no time were requested by the community in any of the comments in the previous versions of this proposal) that do nothing more than further centralize the proposal in a few hands, closing the door to making use of the funds for other proposals that arise in the near future.
It says here that it is adding several suggestions that “arise from the community”:
But what actually happened is that legal or additional paragraphs were incorporated that further centralize the proposal and close the availability of funds for a certain period of time that arise from subsequent proposals, “based on the community’s request”. Just as it does by relying on the name of TR, Alex and others to distribute funds, which these same stakeholders denied. But that in V3 remains the same, as if nothing had happened! It seems that this group only looks after its own interests and is not at all interested in what others say. Not even what they themselves claim to benefit. Clearly there are outside interests behind the proposal.
None of the money that is distributed, from those who refused, is explicitly directed to the community. That they wrote themselves . See
But here it says the opposite
So, first it goes towards a direction that, if TR and others refuse, goes through other bureaucratic steps that they themselves manage, to “only then supposedly” go to the community fund.
On the other hand, it gives the power to TR (but that this one has rejected it) to choose the lawyers… but… Who are the members of TR, is there a responsible team with name and surname? Duncan? reXxTR?
Final comments
This “proposal” for the benefit of the whole community… has many more holes in it as we have seen. And the story falls further and further apart.
It is all a set-up, a fiction, in “pursuit of the community”. But which, in reality, only follows the proponents’ own personal goals.
Alex. TR has explicitly rejected this proposal. But his name is still used here. It seems that the signatories of this proposal, " working for the community", refuse to modify something they were clearly told to abstain from. Because without that, the facade falls down, doesn’t it?
As I have said before. The truth is pressing to come out.
Namaste
I leave you the links to my previous comments, which I give a lot of details regarding this proposal, from its inception.
or with very large funds to carry this proposal by itself. 
. See
