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

[AlephA]

First of all, thank you very much for responding so thoroughly in some aspects. I will just clarify a few points.

1. First of all, THINKING DIFFERENTLY AND NOT AGREEING with what is raised here, does not make me a troll as you mention. It is simply a different stance on the same issue. You seem to take little pleasure in someone else thinking differently. That’s part of everyone. Of how each one takes things in life.

2. Again you say that I use the same tricks as the former USSR. Hahahahahah What was missing. Calm down. I clarify, everyone is a mirror of what he says and does when attacking others. What you see outside with anger or frustration in others is because it exists within us first. If benevolence and understanding existed in your heart, this is how you would see the world around you. Even if it is “outwardly” chaotic. So…I just raised my different point of view and you ATTACK ME.I find only one reason for it. That when you speak some truths others get angry or attack saying that it is pure “verbiage” or that I am a Nazi. Or from the former USSR. There is no need for that if a person is tolerant and shares with others different views and, has nothing to hide. I still appreciate your time in answering my questions.

3. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO GIVE DETAIL OF EVEN THE MOST MINISCULE THINGS, but it is necessary to give details of the steps to be taken with the money allocated to you. And of concrete tasks to achieve, as a closure of each stage in which they are committed to perform.

4. I DO NOT KNOW Zaradar, Edward or Vegas. Therefore, you always have to take the necessary precautions. If they have sufficient capacity (which they have already amply demonstrated), they will have no problem in setting out the guidelines for the work to be done for the allocation of funds by the community. Therefore, it is not just a matter of directly allocating funds and having a blind trust. It doesn’t have to be that way. The trust is limited to each proposal that is presented and approved by the community. If you misuse that money, it will only be the money that is allocated for a specific project or proposal and not a considerable amount that can serve many different projects and proposals.

@RabbiJebediah

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?

The idea is not to be restrictive, but to be transparent with the information and data provided. With a minimum scope of concretion of the different proposals for which grants are requested, deadlines and budgets with allocation of funds by task to be carried out if possible. But mainly that the community HAS THE POWER TO VETATE or APPROVE such allocation of funds. That we know in advance and in a transparent manner where the funds are going and for what purpose. This, to my understanding, is a decentralized community.

5. With respect to what he mentioned about Vegas being only an accessory, I base myself on what he wrote in his proposal

@Vegas

• That if the current multi-signature wallet signers are not willing to do the above, after further discussion, and a new multi-signature wallet, or new multi-signature signers for the current wallet(s), is required to transfer the assets, then:

9 of the validators that are the greatest voting power shall be selected, with Vegas Validator being disqualified, for those willing to serve as signers, and moving to the next validator, until 9 validators are in agreement of accepting the responsibility (7 of 9 signers required to initiate transactions for the wallet).

Therefore, I am not saying anything more than what he has already expressed in his own words. So, his name here remains an accessory and meaningless (or for another reason that is unknown at the moment). If this I say is not correct, he himself could respond here and say that he has agreed to be part of the council mentioned here. If this is not the case, one would think that my analysis is substantiated and correct.

6. You yourself say that TR is composed of 40 people. Who are the responsible for such a team? To whom will we be giving money that are legally responsible? But per se, I do not disagree that they should be paid for their work from now on, with clear proposals and allocation of such funds for it. If not, that there is no detail of what is to be done with those funds and who will be RESPONSIBLE FOR HANDLING THOSE FUNDS. Not the 40 people, that is of no interest. What is of interest is who, with NAME AND SURNAME, are responsible for the management of those funds. And if they do not comply, what legal consequences would they have.

7. On the other hand, it is not necessary to have a law firm or lawyers for each task. If not, just one or two that establish a clear relationship with the community to verify that the funds do not have any legal claims in the future. This is not a false decentralization. It is prevention. Otherwise, how would you address this point? If there were a legal claim for such funds in the future, what prevention initiatives would you take with respect to that point? Or simply none. Please, I am interested in your point of view here.

8. Finally, you are absolutely right here

@RabbiJebediah

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.

But unlike what is proposed here, of allocating funds in a previously established percentage to specific people without any work plan and actions to be carried out within a stipulated term, what I propose is to allocate funds for specific tasks or proposals. So what you are proposing about trust is limited to that specific task or proposal and not to the development of something very general without any stages or budget. The trust is given step by step. Also in this way, we would cover ourselves against global or personal eventualities such as the death of a member with important roles. No one’s life is bought. I may be a few days or several years in this world. Who knows. Better to be safe.

9. I continue to support decentralized allocation and community stewardship. And let each project or proposal go through the respective vote. Let there be a commission (with name and surname) that is in charge of the specific task of the distribution of the funds and that elevates to the community proposals made by themselves if it were the case. As any other person can do it. WITHOUT PRIVILEGES.

Thank you again for your time and response. In my case, I differ on yet another point with you. In my case it has been very nourishing this talk. And the time spent reading you has been very valuable for me. Each of us with our different points of view completes the other. What I do not see, you see and vice versa. It is not a pointless debate, you can always get something valuable out of it. It depends on the perspective with which one looks at things and circumstances.

Good life to all.