Thank you reXxTR for appearing here. Your words bring clarity. I mentioned what TR’s thinking was regarding the allocation of funds for his work. And that you and others, have expressed it very well in the comments of other submissions… I commented, that it did not make sense. Greetings. 
2 Likes
TR can accept or refuse the funds as outlined above in the proposal. In case of the latter, the assets would be diverted into the community pool. Ergo, it makes perfect sense and leaves nothing to chance. Whether the community at large supports such a distribution plan will be shown once this proposal goes up for governance and people vote on it. But as far as asset allocation is concerned, everything is pretty much spelled out as clear as daylight within the prop itself. You can disagree with the distribution schema – which is fine – but you can’t claim anything’s been left of up to chance, or that things don’t make sense.
I’d really appreciate it if you could stop twisting facts and attempting to frame a narrative here.
Shalom!
1 Like
Send the money to the community pool into the hands of those it belongs to.
Allauakbar
We agree. Everything is quite clear. The centrality of funds and the discression of funds by groups or individuals outside of Community control or verification. This is not hypothesis or conjecture. It is seen in the facts of where the money is going.
We all make mistakes, no one is perfect in life. Sometimes we have great moments and sometimes we have moments to forget. Repenting from a true heart is valuable for each person and for others.
If your proposal is well intentioned, you will be able to reflect more wisely and without rivalry, on my comments. We all contribute to the whole with our different knowledge and experience.
Otherwise, you will continue to see outside of you, “ill-intentioned” people or trolls as you call them, who want to hurt you. I hope that this is not the case, and that it is not a reflection of your own self.
Try to do good, recognizing your own mistakes, and moving forward respectfully for the common good.
Good life to you and many blessings. Namaste.
I’ve re-read all your replies one more time to make sure I wasn’t missing anything, and I think the issue boils down to personal preferences in the end (apart from your entire narrative-framing spiel). My proposal hinges on getting that money where it’s needed, and doing that ASAP. If we took your route, this process would take months of multiple proposal-making and governance voting (doxx everyone down to the last members, write up a detailed spending plan, do pay-outs according to milestones, vote on which law firm will handle extraction, etc. etc. etc.). In the end it’s just 2 vastly different ways on how to approach the distribution of these funds. I disagree with your approach for the simple reason that we need to send the money where it’ll do the most good, as soon as possible - I’ve already explained all this in the prop itself. What you’re asking me to do is fundamentally alter my proposal to the point I’d need to submit a new one.
I think it’d be best if you wrote your own prop and submitted it here since you’ve obviously given a great deal of thought to this issue. Or just vote YES to Vegas’s, since your thinking seems to be in line with his. 
As for mine, I don’t think I’ll be making sweeping changes to it; it’s good as it is, and I’m happy with it.
A few tweaks will be made according to community feedback/suggestions, but that’s it.
Shalom!
1 Like
Sorry. But what would be the problem with submitting an improved proposal? With different inputs from the community.
Seeing a more decentralized proposal. Such as, for example, placing a section where the community can verify the work to be done and can veto fundamental decisions. Such as the allocation of funds. And that each of the interested parties must present detailed complementary proposals for the allocation of such funds.
Flexibility along the way is very valuable to reach the destination.
Namaste
1 Like
I love how you toy with words and meanings. Since when does “changed” automatically mean “improved”? Changed according to your suggestions = improved? 
FYI I’ve taken community feedback & suggestions into consideration, and will make tweaks accordingly. But to answer your question on the topic of re-submitting a vastly changed prop: because I don’t want to. I think the approach I outlined is the best one in our current situation… which is the reason I’m PROPOSING it. Feel free to disagree.
It’ll bog down the entire process and turn it into a months-long slog. We don’t have time for this.
Like I said, feel free to write your own prop and submit it here.
Shalom!
1 Like
Hahaha. I am not playing with words. Every word has a deep meaning if one stops to look closely. Change does not equal Improved.
Change is related to taking another direction. Instead of going north I go west, east or south. That is to change. One abandons the path one was on to take a different one.
Improved, on the other hand, is to continue along the same path but incorporating new tools that facilitate the road to travel. If you are on a route that takes you to a specific destination and you have “just enough time or very little time to get there”, you do not abandon the road, but you stop at some point and get the water. Now your path is no longer thirsty, but has improved. Because you have incorporated something new on your way, something that you did not have but that was necessary to reach your destination.
For these reasons Change is not the same as Improvement. They are very different things. It is not a nice play on words. You still think badly of what I offer you. That is why I am writing these words to clarify my thoughts.
Lastly, with this I am clarifying to you that I do not want you to totally change the way, but to improve it for greater control and benefit for the whole community.
I am accepting that there are percentage designations stipulated beforehand, but making it clear that it is not a blank check, but has to go through a validation process by the community.
On the other hand, they could be the same people you mention, but they would go to compete with others that are proposed and that emerge from the community. The community will validate who of what they propose, they would like, for a given commission. Based on their background and verifiable experience. Making later, a legal relationship with them.
I hope I have been able to clarify your misunderstanding, and be of use to you.
Best regards.
Namaste
Let’s just agree to disagree and call it a day, how about that?
Shalom.
Well, that’s fine by me. 
Let the community draw its conclusions.
Blessings.
How about we talk core design of Lunc and then use the community pool to fund it?
Everybody wants to get their hands on that 4.1+million$!!! 
4 Likes
Wen vote? I think I’m ready
2 Likes
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it’s customary to have a prop up on Agora for 7 days or so to gather enough community feedback? I think we’re currently (as of writing this) on day 4.
I’m also adding various community suggestions and feedback into the prop, and will update the original post once everything is ready (alongside removing the LUNC donations wallet before the “final” version goes up on Terra Station).
But thank you for the support, it’s much appreciated. 
Shalom!
4 Likes
7 days is good but not mandatory. Glad to know you are to tweak it with respect to some good suggestions and freeback. For me, I’m 99.9% for it already. 
1 Like
@RabbiJebediah ~ please list what the Terra Rebels have done to earn that 30%.
From what I see, validators are the true hero’s that kept TC alive, and they were rewarded with Lunc and are now positioned well in our ecosystem (that’s already a good reward)… also, coding in the burn tax was honorable ~ it was also nothing groundbreaking, any coder could have done it (coding in taxes/fees has been done before)… Same with the cosmos-hub IBC. so, what exactly justifies 30% of the 4.1+million$ to the rebels? Give details to the community…
The Better Plan
Send the ETH across the Terra bridge (convert it to Lunc) and burn it all ~ that divides the market cap into less units and we all see value added to our wallets. We have a healthy and growing community pool to fund core dev, once we dev that core ~ third parties will come and fund the rest and attract users… the more we can burn as our pool grows the better. What this community needs now money can’t buy (good dev plans). Coding those plans can easily be afforded by our current community pool ~ in addition, coders who hold Lunc will see a rise in the value of their Lunc (if they code well and we follow good core dev plans).
1 Like
The beauty of Bitcoin is it has no employees… let’s fix TC’s core in a way that doesn’t require anymore work ~ then, let third parties (who want that stability) be pulled in and do the rest (at their expense).
Our community pool (as is) can fund the following core redesign (or another design like it):
That sound like you are quite backside wounded. Glad to hear it. Keep on with the seething
2 Likes
No, he shouldn’t, but before that we should not consider the proposal.
It’s Rabbi, without the quotes. Get it? As an small holder of lunc (just a few millions) I’m happy that this group of people (who worked “hard” lmao) are not going to keep destroying my investment anymore. Rabbi represents what the true community wants to do and how needs to be done.
Community are not you and your discord friends like alex, akujiro, pholuna, etc, etc.
Looking forward to this proposal to being open to vote, I’m ready to vote YES.
בְּעֶזְרַת הַשֵּׁם
1 Like
Both the issues your bring up (Terra Rebels, burning the $4M) were addressed in the proposal.
Please re-read it (or at least don’t skip important sections outlining all the info).
Shalom!