speechless
Like, how do you quantify “most people agree”?
Alex tweeting something does not change the fact that what was proposed is an attempt at censorship that can’t actually be enforced. After the fact rationalisation at its best!
3 Likes
Who’s censoring anyone? Mr. Forshaw is free to refuse the payout (if this proposal passes), and continue on with his wacky antics within LUNC’s wider governance system. This proposal only stipulates he step away from all that IF HE ACCEPTS THE MONEY. It’s HIS choice at the end of the day - if he wants that money, that is. It’s a conditional proposition which leaves him with total power in how he approaches it.
Please re-read the proposal again if you’re confused by certain sections.
Shalom! 
2 Likes
Baseless statement from that contributor.
No need to re-read it, I get what you’re attempting here and I think it’s a disgrace. What you said there and in your proposal… Is literally censorship or an attempt at it.
I can’t believe I’m actually having this discussion TBH, but you think we get more value from paying an individual to not talk anymore, rather than deploying that capital into something useful?
3 Likes
Very well articulated. Certainly makes for convincing argument that warrants due consideration…
3 Likes
Why not set the 4 Mio in a account and get interest from that interest pay the devs🤷.
You get around 6 a 9% in a year min. Thats around 300.000$ per year
Yes-This is the most thought out and coherent proposal created to date.
3 Likes
Developrs and the wider TR team(s) need to be paid now, not 6+ months down the road. If we had some other source of income then an argument could be made to stake the money for APY. Since we don’t, we need to take care of pressing issues like the ones described up in the proposal. Do Kwon’s company could fold tomorrow or have its assets frozen (though I hope neither of that occurs), but if it does what will happen to LUNC? Monthly operating costs for the blockchain range between $150-400k depending on who you ask. Who will provide that money? Who will pay the developers to keep working? Who will fund new dApps and projects? Who would help us in the middle of a bear market with everyone bleeding red?
None of that will wait for 6-12 months for our yield to come back at a fraction of that $4M.
I don’t disagree with your idea in principle, but we don’t have the luxury of implementing it.
Shalom!
4 Likes
This is a biased proposal, which cannot be cosidered a proposal, but a way to discriminate and divide.
The way the funds are distributed does not make much sense.
Some key personalities have been choosen who would control these funds in a more centralized way than any other proposal. I do not think that Ed Kim would ever support this proposal.
It seems that “Rabbi Jebediah” has some personal interests in this proposal, therefore I cannot trust him at all.
To be honest I think we can only consider this proposal as a nice joke
6 Likes
Are you saying that you want Alex to accept/not accept the money and just walk way?
Big NO for for zillion reasons - the main one being that we are skipping steps and discussing what to do with funds that are beyond our reach (they are off-chain and no new multisig keyholders have been appointed by governance).
2 Likes
The distribution of funds is in question yes.
The choosing of individuals should be left for another proposal; one I think Ed is working on.
Overall , a very good proposal.
Seems a bit antisemitic of you to have a “zillion” reasons, then cherry pick a single one that has already been addressed if you carefully read the proposal.
3 Likes
I fail to see how this is divisory or biased. The funds are distributed to the exact places that need them to stimulate growth. We’re not tossing it into the void or giving them to unknown actors. Thus far this is the only proposal that has gone into such detail into what exactly should be done with the funds.
I also fail to see how this would directly benefit the proposer in this instance. You’ve elected to insult the proposer instead of criticizing the actual proposal.
You calling it a joke is a massive disservice to the effort put into it and it’s supporters, among those Zaradar himself who publicly praised the proposal.
I see a lot of dogpiling on the author of the agora post but very little substance. If you have anything concrete to criticize then that is fine, that’s what we’re here for, but most of what I’ve seen so far is surface level insults and ad hominems.
8 Likes
Why does the distribution of funds don’t make much sense to you? It looks good to me and I’m sure the author would be open to change the distribution if give a reason to.
The proposal also doesn’t “discriminate and divide”, the only one I can see getting “discriminated” against is Alexander Forshaw, by giving him the option to get a good amount of money for not involving himself in a project he has attacked multiple times already.
I can’t see those personal interests you claim the author to have.
4 Likes
This TR core L1 dev and one of the most respected people in LUNC doesnt seem to agree with you about the funds allocation. In fact Zaradar endorsed the proposal.
It is much less centralised way of control over these funds contrary to your statement and many previous proposals. Including this one by Alex first and foremost.
I also didnt hear you comment of a boost this prop gives to smaller validators? It addresses an issue we have been talking for months - the need to decentralise more and transition away from 3 validators holding every proposal hostage.
Alex part is controversial perhaps (although many would offer much more to see him gone), BUT he is always free to decline this offer.
Since many respectable poeople including several validators and a few members of TR spoken favourably about this proposal it has definitely gone past ‘a joke’ stage. If a jokester is able to put a better proposal than most in this space, then I wish us all for far more of such jokes.
9 Likes
Congratulations sir. This is a very well explained proposal. THIS IS THE WAY of how funds should be located. Devs need to get paid for their work, we need them to accelerate their work.
Also we as a community need to know the people accountable for holding the money or how/where/wich projects the money is going to be located also not worrying about the legal stuff
I support this, we going to the moon.
We need more great proposals like this and not destroying ourselves with bad props like lowering the burn tax… but that’s another thing.
Anyway, good job Mr Rabbi
6 Likes
The battle for 4m continues… Just transfer them to the ustc community pool and decide further by voting.
Don’t try pushing antisemitism BS over me before knowing me personally and my background, okay? Stick to the proposal. It’s a no for me.
congratulations sir, I like this proposal, for small people like me, for the small average holder this gives me more trust in the LUNC project to invest and buy more. Greetings from India sir, God bless you sir. Well written proposal, you are the best sir. Keep the good work
5 Likes