Good morning to everyone around here. I will mark several points why this proposal is a NO.
-
This proposal, which is very detailed in its explanation here, does not do the same in the substantiation of the percentages that are proposed. Therefore, it cannot be put to a vote with a simple Yes or No. There is no detailed rationale for the percentages assigned to each part described.
-
Another point is the centralization of the proposal, similar to that of Alex. It varies in form. And it is less ambitious than Alex’s proposal. Instead of keeping 100% of the funds for the 9 self-elected members, here they keep 70% for almost the same self-elected members. Only in this case it is credited “for work done”. But in the beginning, those same self-elected members said they were doing it for the community or for free in some cases. And now you have to pay for that work already done. This should simply go separately. TR should give a detail of what has been done and what things are outside and what things are not for the respective payment. In a transparent and detailed way. Here again “pay if you see” is named. There is no detail that justifies allocating 30% to that purpose.
-
Then. Again the centralization in the management of funds. But in a more disguised way.
- The 30% for TR, without any detail for that allocation.
- 10% “under the jurisdiction of the Terra Rebels development and programming sub-team”, again the management of funds by a team that does not know what it is going to do with it. Discretionary management of funds.
- Another 10% will be reserved for contract/unit development work (programming). This fund would be under the direct control and supervision of Zaradar. Again from the self-selected team for fund management proposed by Alex above.
- Another 4% trust or crypto collateral would be set aside to assist the eventual… stablecoin/AFT of LUNC when the time comes. Another proposal Alex proposed and TR were in agreement. Again with no roadmap with detail on this. Just another allocation of funds on a discretionary basis with no rationale.
- 3 %- Fiat payment to Professor Edward Kim’s grant program. Now it is discretionary management funds for Edward. Just the word “grant program” and another percentage is allocated.
- 2 %- Funds set aside for legal counsel… If necessary, we nominate some of the Terra Rebels core founders (we follow always the same ones). These main founders of TR are:
(i)Tobias “Zaradar” Andersen.
(ii) Pedro “Vegas” Borges
(iIi) Professor Edward Kim
If any of the above 3 refuse to process this application (all 3 must agree to do so!), then the accredited officer/counsel/attorney(s) will be assigned to do so. It is already known that Vegas never wanted to participate. Therefore, this leaves the door open to such a situation. It would be the attorney of their choice at their discretion. Centralized management again without any control by the community… - And the golden brooch of this ambiguous proposal of fundamentation. 1 %- Direct fiduciary payment to Mr. Alexander Forshaw as a “finder’s fee” for his work in finding these funds. This is unusual. They seem to be playing us for fools. Now it turns out that we have to rely 100% on what Alex said. Since he is an “unimpeachable person of good standing in the community”
. Maybe, DK looked for Alex and not the other way around. Who can say otherwise? Now suddenly Alex “convinced DK” to tell him about those “hidden” funds. Many of us know how things are handled in the background.
From what has been said above, the true intention of this proposal is clear. To centralize the funds in a more concealed way for the community. So that it is not so noticeable. With the allocation of 30% to the community fund. In fact, many here have fallen into the trap.
As TR and others, the community’s trust in them is already devalued, they are looking for other actors to make centralized proposals in the fund. Already knowing that vegas is not going to accept to be part of any board. His name here is just an “accessory” to disguise the intentions behind it. The management of discretionary funds by the same self-elected people of the original Alex’s proposal.
I ask then:
- where is the detail and economic and labor justification of these allocated percentages?
- Why is the management of such percentages not put to a vote of the community? If there is no one else, in millions of people, who are suitable for the management of these funds, why can’t the community choose who they would like to manage these funds?
- Why is a percentage allocated in advance to back up a future AFT? Do they see the future? And if they don’t, what will they do with those funds? Will the self-elected commission direct the funds at their discretion?
I personally support Vega’s proposal. For one simple reason. It is very clear the decentralized management of the funds and the community has VETO power of the decisions that can be made by the elected commission in their proposal. Nothing like that exists here. Just transferring funds to a group of people to manage at their discretion. With nothing to back up (roles-responsibilities-budgets-timelines) that transfer of funds