Only enable code that had been disabled for security reasons during the crash. Those are things that were already coded by the Terra team.
1 Like
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
2 Likes
Many times, in the markets, when funds are managed, they only “state what they are going to do”, but they do not detail how. So that they delegate the power of management and administration to them. And then the “unforeseen” or “unfortunate” things happen. Without “apparent” control by the managers or persons in charge of the management of the funds delegated by the users. Thus, people trust in a future hope, without support. And then FTX and so many others happen. Due to non-transparent practices and discretionary mismanagement of invested funds.
The proposal is very good. But a lot of the things highlighted hinge completely on the idea that the money does not have any form of legal liability. 100% .
The question would be, if there is a small possibility, even the tiniest one, what would happen next?
The Vegas proposal referred to in my first comment above is as follows 
The Vegas proposal referred to in my first comment above is as follows
Compare and comment. I support the vote and the power of decision by the community. Not centralization of funds. Less so without any details of how the funds are managed. Just “statements of good intentions”. Nothing that can be reliably verified. Nor any commitment of tasks to be carried out in the future. Just statements. And allocation of discretionary funds to a group of people.
Of course, there are always the “political” applauders, without any justification as to why they agree. Just “very good proposal”… “I support this proposal”… “a great person” and other qualifiers. Nothing of solid foundations that support the proposals that are applauded. 
That’s why the proposal outlines the 2% for legal council (over $80k). If the money is tainted then we can discuss that as a community and figure out where to go from there (probably via other proposals that’ll contribute ideas on how to possibly salvage the funds).
But personally I believe the money is clean, and we ought to do our best to claim it for our blockchain.
Shalom! 
Can we just write a proposal to just get the money in the hands of the community?
The proposal should just include:
- Paying the legal fee
- Electing the TRUSTED signees of the “wallet” if the money is “clean”
- Transferrin the money to the wallet
- A clause that disbursement of the funds can only be done based upon the next agreed proposal,
JUST GET THE MONEY .
The follow up proposal should involve Edward Kim , so that changes to your present proposal will align with his.
2 Likes
Dunno what to tell you… write it? Put it up? 
Shalom!
I am pleased to hear that, thank you my friend.
Shalom!
Your proposal is well written, albeit a few things need to be changed.
Too many proposals are floating around and we are really going in circles because no consensus can be reached. I am suggesting things that can make your proposal more palatable to all stake holders.
Vegas’ proposal has passed. Now, you have a counter proposal. Who will be next? When will this end?
Honestly, we are just wasting precious time and the developers are still not paid after 6 mths of hard work.
2 Likes
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:
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
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.
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…
Everything is spelled out in the individual sub-sections. I recommend you re-read them.
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.
Again, outlined in the sub-section dealing with the Quant Team and their efforts towards a re-peg.
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.
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!
2 Likes
As said before the proposal is very thorough and will resolve a plethora of issues.
We are speaking about " $4.16M" as if we have this in FIAT. Since the discovery of this money would it be fair that it’s about $2…M now?
If this is a fair assessment of the true value will the appropriation of funds as percentages be unfair to say TR? (30 % of $4m compared o 30% of $2M)
First of all, thank you very much for responding so thoroughly in some aspects. I will just clarify a few points.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
- With respect to what he mentioned about Vegas being only an accessory, I base myself on what he wrote in his proposal
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Finally, you are absolutely right here
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.
- 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.
I will be totally honest, I’ve not read the proposal. And I won’t,
Actions speak louder than words.
Ever since the ‘Rabbi’ entered The community all they have down is sown discord and disunity in the community.
I worked hard earlier this year over summer for LUNC. Others did also.
To have a new member come in acting like they own the place and insulting long standing devs and community members is really rude.
The truth is I will vote no on this proposal. Character speaks volumes, impersonating a faith is really the lowest of the low and I am deeply offended by it.
4 Likes
I would advise you to read the proposal. There are some very good points in it. Yes “Rabbi” attacks are unwarranted and honestly, quite infantile. We must understand that we are a community that has vested interest. I have invested a significant amount of money in the LUNC project and so are many others. I am profoundly disgusted of the actions/words of some community members who think they are too big for their britches. We are an ecosystem. We need to stop tearing down each other.
Can you give us the names of the 40 terra rebels devs and how can we measure how much work have they done each? 1.2 millions dollars for people that we dont know how much work they ve done and we dont know who they are. How can we ve sure this is true?
1 Like
Verbal attacks:
- You’d fit right in as a small-time aparatchik for a repressive ex-USSR regime
- Maybe get someone with a better grasp on grammar and syntax while you’re at it.
Your proposal is a good one: It’s clear and straightforward. No need for a diatribe.
1 Like
A few more tidbits that came up while reading some of the comments:
I share the rationale by a TR member. In which he clearly says that they do not need payment for the work already done. Which has been given for free. On the other hand, it also clarifies that from now on they may require a specific payment to continue with their development and work.
Prior to that, it clarifies the following:
And also:
I also agree with what @reXxTR said:
And finally, the icing on the cake of this TR financing issue:
Therefore, again as stated here (as in other cases I mention below), it would make no sense whatsoever to designate funds for these developers.
On the other hand, with respect to this point
It would be convenient to establish a budget provided by the TFL team or by TR, as the case may be, for the cost of maintenance of such equipment, on the one hand. And on the other hand, with the money allocated to it, estimate how long it could be sustained without requesting funds again for the same purpose. And to show it in a transparent way to the community. As mentioned by two of the members of TR in this section that I am sharing with you.
Another point that makes noise is the following. Zaradar, with the possibility of acting at will in its entirety.
We have tried this in the past, with one person or team having centralized decisions and management of funds at their discretion. And it didn’t work out so well. So why stumble over the same stone again.
Again here, it is mentioned that the team can use the funds in a discretionary manner, it is not an interpretation or hypothesis. It is their own words.
Without knowing what they will do with these funds in a transparent manner.
Therefore, this allocation of funds, should go separately.
In a different proposal where it is well specified what will be done with that money being requested. No discretion.
Same for funds to Edward.
That a proposal be submitted as to where the requested grant funds would go.
And if you say that alex is of no interest
Why then do you assign this percentage to Alex. just “for good searcher”?
For all the points highlighted above, there seems to be no consistency between what is said and what is actually done.
Finally with regard to the point you mention here
So, yes there is centralization, but in a different way. Instead of being only one team of 9 elected as Mr. Forshaw’s proposal, here it is subdivided into several teams.
- On the one hand they are assigned 30% for their free work (they made it clear that it is free and they do not need any payment for it) of the previous months and another 10% for hardware maintenance (without us as a community knowing the expenses that this demands) to TR, that is a total of 40%;
- On the other hand Edward a 3%, just because he is Edward. Because, even if he has a declared grant program, that does not mean what he will do with the funds allocated to him. Otherwise we are talking about a donation for Edward’s grants.
- On the other hand, 10% to Zaradar, for the discretionary management of its development funds.
- 4% to Dunkan from the TR team (again another % for the TR team) for discretionary fund management (as you yourself mention) “for when the time comes” in your words, to have a new stablecoin or AFT as some mention. In other words, why not come up with a future proposal “for when the time comes” to allocate such funds. Why do it now with nothing concrete… These is a big question mark.
- And finally 1% for Forshaw for “seeker”.
According to this analysis if we add 40+3+10+4+1 we get a total of 59% of discretionary funds allocated. And that they will be used in a centralized manner. Because no one denies that among these people who are part of the group of 9 self-elected by Alex, due to the trust that exists between them, they can communicate with each other to establish jointly, the allocation and direction of such funds. Since from the community, there would be no way to verify the movements of the funds. That is a centralized system.
In conclusion:
Most of this proposal, focuses only on allocating funds to teams that have not presented any real interest in it, presenting specific proposals in that regard. As mentioned above with TR, Dukan and Forshaw.
And on the other hand, funds are allocated, only by the name of who manages as Zaradar and Edward. Without requesting anything in return, no plan or detail regarding the destination of such funds.
So the parallel with Alex’s proposal is obvious. The same people and teams get 59% of the funds and their management at total discretion. These funds are totally centralized by people who were part of the previous team of 9 self-elected people that Alex proposed. And you say that the funds are not centralized? Not in the same way, but in fact they are.
I conclude this analysis, sharing with the community, how we normally proceed when the destination of funds is diffuse in relation to the parties involved. In judicial, business, institutional and political relations, a common term is used when the purpose of a project, proposal or regulation is not clear. Follow “the money trail”. This means, who are the ultimate beneficiaries of the proposed actions or plans. Of all the donations, contributions or allocations that can be offered.
So, if we do this same analysis here, we will see that the ultimate beneficiaries are largely the same as before. When a centralized commission was simply proposed.
If we do the same thing with the proposal that Vegas is presenting, you will see that the ultimate beneficiary is the community itself and not a particular group of people or teams.
Draw your own conclusions. Now, I have nothing more to say.
Best regards. Good life to all
3 Likes
If I may suggest,
Please refrain from having these funds tied to Terra Rebels name as these are community funds. If we wish to obtain any of the funds in question, then we will submit invoices to the community for any core protocol updates the community wishes to have implemented. This way, there will be no confusion, forceful implementations, and/or redirecting funds.
If the community wishes to send funds in a form of donation to Terra Rebels, then that will be at the community’s discretion.
2 Likes
Oh I thought you’d meant in the proposal itself, my bad.
Eh, it’s the comments section - a bit of banter is unavoidable.
Shalom!
2 Likes