Distribute the $4M in Off-Chain Community Assets Towards LUNC’s Revitalization

[RabbiJebediah]

Shalom!

I began reading your reply with an open mind and wanted to genuinely address your points, but the more I read, the more I understood you’re not here to argue in good faith. I must commend you on the verbiage and skill with which you pivot from completely unrelated topics, and the amount of logical fallacies you weave through your text - you’re a lot more capable than the other trolls and detractors who come here. Just for fun I’ll address your points, but I’ll admit it was an exercise in tedium to even engage in such a quixotic task - you use every trick in the book to try and twist the meaning of what should be (and is!) a very straightforward proposal. And at the end, we are all poorer for having read it, as it is nothing but a time-waster without a single positive addition to the communal problems we’re all attempting to resolve.

Let’s begin, then:

1. The percentages is what’s being PROPOSED here. There’s no need to granulate everything down to the level of subatomic dust. And the proposal can – and indeed shall – be put up to a vote. That’s what governance is for. Anything can be PROPOSED - whether the community votes for it to pass is another matter entirely, and is beyond the scope of this conversation.

2. No, this proposal is not similar to Mr. Forshaw’s - there is no centralization here, because there are no long-term managerial, un-elected, undemocratic, undoxxed committees. The Tribunal outlined above is voluntary, unpaid, doxxed, trusted, temporary, and most of all REPLACABLE - if they refuse to undertake the assigned duties, the legal council(ors) will take over and process those tasks. Also, your attempt to draw parallels between Terra Rebels (an organization spanning 40+ people and 6+ months of tangible work on LUNC) with Mr. Forshaw’s hypothetical committee is laughable. Do better!

3. Fund allocation is completely decentralized due to the the fact the asset sub-divisions are spread out across a variety of diverse initiatives. If you’re implying the centralization is happening under the auspices of Terra Rebels or their umbrella (due to multiple of its members/sub-groups being nominated), then I would kindly ask you to point me to any other competing team which is currently seeking to work on LUNC or has done so in the past. This point is also addressed in the proposal proper, which makes me think you either skimmed or misread it… or, more likely, are purposefully misrepresenting it.

Now on to your bulletpoints:

• TR will handle funds distribution internally - this is what is being PROPOSED.
• Your phrasing implies ineptitude without proof. I’d kindly ask you to refrain from such.
• Wrong. Zaradar was one of multiple nominated keyholders there; he’s a task-distributor here.
• More baseless conjecture. FYI, the roadmap of the USTC/AFT/stablecoin repeg depends on the Quant team’s unified whitepaper being finished. You’d know this if you’d spent any time in their USTC channel. As for the discretionary basis, again, this is what is being PROPOSED.
• How would you relay the information about Prof. Kim’s grants program? Must we link the program’s bank account to dispel all doubt the money will go to the program itself, and not directly into Edward’s slacks and pockets? Your pedantry is exhausting and unnecessary.
• Are you Vegas? Do you speak for him? When will this endless conjecture stop? As for the attorney(s), again, for the Nth time, this is what is being PROPOSED. We PROPOSE that a specific law firm be contacted and contracted to handle the screening and extraction of this money - the community is included by VOTING for, or against this. Should we run separate proposals for every lawyer we want to hire? Then again for the days during which they’ll do this work? How about the amount of paperwork they must produce? Would that satisfy this endless charade for “decentralization” you’re championing?
• No one cares about Alex the person - the aim is to dismantle his platform, which is an atavistic remnant of his time spent with Terra Rebels. He enjoys an undue amount of influence and reach due to that, and he abuses it to no end. I will not post the dozens of examples of his malfeasance here, nor will I go into details – skim the rest of this page, others have done so already – but I will add that he’s done an incomparable amount of damage to LUNC, our community, and its collective reputation. Your attempt to satirize a serious problem is telling, because you have no other leverage nor way to dismantle the facts that stand against you (and Mr. Forshaw). We have no way of enforcing our desire to keep him away from governance, as he can always submit proposals under anonymous aliases - but what we can do (and seek to do) with the anti-participation clause is to remove his platform. And that is exactly what will happen if he takes the payout - he will be honor bound not to involve himself anymore… at least not under his real name. And that’s all that matters.

@AlephA

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.

More conjecture, more baseless accusations, more pablum and pilpul… Everything has been laid out in detail, and explained thoroughly - the way you keep misrepresenting the proposal’s aim is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst. If you honestly believe what you’re writing here then I have no other recourse but to tell you to re-read the original points up above until it finally sinks in.

@AlephA

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.

No comment is needed here, but I’ll add it anyway just to drive the point home like a nail through this wooden strawman you’ve built: neither you nor anyone else has the right to demand governance be curtailed to fit your personal desires. The community will vote with their own voices/tokens, and your attempt to think for them and draw false conclusions is nothing but a cheap parlor trick. You’d fit right in as a small-time aparatchik for a repressive ex-USSR regime; you use all the same tricks they did (and still do) to frame narratives and attempt to control consensus. Whose trust has been “devauled” in TR? Yours? Please…

@AlephA

where is the detail and economic and labor justification of these allocated percentages?

Everything is spelled out in the individual sub-sections. I recommend you re-read them.

@AlephA

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?

Because no other competing team has, is, or will be (for the foreseeable future) working on LUNC in the same capacity as Terra Rebels. If you can wring up a 40+ people stack, then please, by all means write up your own proposal and outline why you think they – and not Terra Rebels – deserve those payouts.

@AlephA

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?

Again, outlined in the sub-section dealing with the Quant Team and their efforts towards a re-peg.

@AlephA

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.

His new(er/est?) proposal seeks to empower validators with keys to the multi-sig. That is a recipe for disaster, and is the main reason the entire initiative is flawed at its core. I have personally a great amount of respect for him and all the work he’s done for the community, but I believe his latest offering is not a positive direction for our chain. And that’s fine - it’s OK to disagree; that’s why we have governance.

@AlephA

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

You could also argue that no one can pass the test of scrutiny if you keep narrowing the parameters until they become impossibly constricting. “Just a group of people to manage at their discretion?” Is Zaradar just another random nobody, or is he a senior programmer and experienced team-leader? Is Edward Kim just another nobody, or is he a highly knowledgeable and skilled associate professor? I could go on, but what’s the point? You aim to tear down others instead of build them up - and for what? You’ve not made a single worthwhile argument/point in this entire writeup of yours! What a waste of time…

Well I guess that brings us to the end of this little exercise. I’ll just say this: there will always be an element of trust included in these governance actions, and human behavior can’t be dialed down to a programmed outcome. Regardless of who ends up with control over that multi-sig and the $4M, we will always need to cross our fingers and hope for the best - same as with anything in life, really. There are no 100% certainties, life doesn’t work that way. Despite all the precautions we can put in place (and I think I’ve added enough clauses in there to make a lawyer blush), we’ll always need to trust the people we’re nominating and empowering to act on our behalf.

Anyway, I applaud your effort and skill, but you came here to argue in bad faith, and that’s not OK.

I wasted 20min of my life responding to you for the benefit of onlookers. I will not do so again.

Have a good day/night (depending on when you read this).

Shalom!