My mental gymnastics asks for proof of misuse of funds … can’t see any …
And where others, how many of grants TGF approved?
Does everyone really want to see Do Kwon so much?
2 Likes
1 Like
I am 1000% with Rabbi. Guys the work for this proposal is awesome, e have to admit this! Let’s give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. It is a 100% YES vote 
7 Likes
Signed up just to have my say.
Voted Yes. We need to pick a direction: a unified, cohesive L1 team with a plan to push this forward.
The Crypto Bull market is here and we don’t have much time to squander. We need KEY developmental pieces effectively deployed during this short period to create attraction for investors. dApps and consumers. We have the community, now we need the fundamental, developmental pieces of this chain to thrive.
One thing i would ask, which would benefit the entire community further is (even if the prop passes), is to re-establish communications with Vinh and Frag to bring them on board. We would have a strong L1 team all working towards vision and mission which will put us in an even strong position to succeed as a community. This will also produce faster results in the sense of getting LUNC ready as quick as possible for this bull cycle.
I am happy for us, speaking as one individual from the greater LUNC community to pay for Vinh and Frag’s services in addition to this prop (“Don’t miss the forest for the trees”), or even to add them into this prop as a last ditch effort, especially if they see that their own prop is likely to not proceed as the community is not particularly happy about it, especially in relation to the team that is proposed (Lack of Senior Dev (Tobias) and Superman missing).
5 Likes
One of the reasons TGF cannot be involved. They wanted to set up Cayman Islands LTD for a reason. They are not in line with US law regarding non profits. They also broke their transparemcy pledge by obfuscating transfers for (alleged) developer payments. They have sent the dev payments in 3 batches to Kraken exchange. None of the transfers are clearly described which developer this is for. After the funds ended up in Kraken account it is not possible to track them. The community has no way to audit which developer from the Q1 budget was paid, who was not paid for, how much in total each developer has recieved. For all we know the 2 Junior devs may have been a myth. Also it is possible that people other than devs named in the governance prop got paid. At the moment we dont even know who is running this Organisation after Ed Kim left - was the change updated in the legal papers of the Organization? Why was Zaradar and Lunc Burn Army mentioned in AMAs to be running TGF. Are they legal members of the organisation even?
TGF does not meet any of the criteria listed here:
“Charitable” Purposes | Internal Revenue Service
The exempt purposes set forth in Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of…
This is just a small piece of whats wrong with this organisation. I advise all the validators and staker NOT TO authorise a transfer of funds to this organisation. This is possibly sending money to a illegal entity. A potentially serious problem to be had down the line.
5 Likes
So new team is from the fellowship of the ring…
I pref the real name of the people we hire to the team and with there real foto on the website.
I that to much to ask when we as pay there paycheck.
1 Like
No With Veto!
Redline UST Repeg L1 team
will you cooperate?
Even if Redline proposes it, I think that human labor is necessary for actual development.
Will Repeg be included in the L1 work?
4 Likes
You had that with Tobias, and look how it turned out. 
Maybe, but it will need its own spending proposal the community can vote on. This one is for core L1 work. USTC repeg is an important side issue, but it shouldn’t be bundled into primary L1 work (even though there will probably be overlap once the time to implement it comes in the future).
It’s funny to watch, they’re so transparent. 
L1 - just supporting the network in a dy ing state for ~100% of the CP. Enough. It won’t change the situation. All focus for applications, repeg, utility. I hope community and big validators will ignore any stu pid maintrance for billion.
TR promised us a USTC plan back in Q4 2022. For example.
But they did nothing, they didn’t even try. Just stealing money from CP and Oracle.
2 Likes
Reposting from the Amended Spending Prop thread for answers:
TGF advertises itself as a 501c3 non-profit:
However, Terra Grants Foundation is not registered as a 501c3 with the IRS:
So right off the bat TGF is misrepresenting itself to the public. Soliciting donations for a non-existent charity is a big no-no.
But wait, there’s more. TGF is registered in Pennsylvania as a business:
Note at the bottom of the screenshot that “WH Research, Inc.” is listed as an interested entity. In other words, WH Research, Inc. owns TGF (i.e. has a business interest in TGF).
What is WH Research, Inc.? Apparently it’s an entity Ed and a colleague, James Park, set up almost a decade ago which focuses on “data collection and analysis.” It appears to be focused on the healthcare industry:
Why does Ed’s healthcare datafarming corporation own TGF? Who is James Park? Why wasn’t WH Research, Inc.'s interest in TGF disclosed?
The WH Research datafarm connection to TGF casts Ed’s “AI sidechain” in a different light. Was TGF just a front for Ed to funnel money into WH Research?
2 Likes
This all got debunked by A.E in the other thread.
Reposting my response:
-
WH Research, Inc.’s existence and interest in TGF were never disclosed.
-
An unknown person, James Park, has a controlling interest in TGF via WH Research that was also never disclosed.
-
A proper subsidiary is supposed to be independently managed from the parent company. How can TGF be independently managed when Ed leads both TGF and WH Research?
-
What “tax exempt purpose” TGF has contributed to? The TGF website states no grants have been approved yet.
AE is not a part of TGF. he may have a theory, but it is not a response by the TGF. The report to the IRS will be sent as the concers are valid and no one replied to them.
3 Likes
Neither is Citizen_anon nor any of us part of TGF.
This does not lessen the information provided.
3 Likes
Woooiiiiwww!!
Hi Rabbi, you know i am a supporter of you. My vote is already yes, but please explain the repeg stuff, because ustc repeg can’t be done as this man with multiple personality duncan aka centurion think. He want to drain the money of the new investors (who buyed ustc at 0,02$), make these lose 50% of their own money, just to help the early investor (who buyed ust at 1,00$)
Duncan proposal is encrypted and specifically not clear. Let’s speak clearly:
“Reverse split it at a rate of 100:1 to get UST”
This means that if we buy ustc at the rate of 0,02$/ustc today, after the reverse split we’ll have 1 ust for 100 ustc, so 50% loss. 50% loss of people money, do you agree with that? In that case I’ll have to change my vote from yes to no with veto.
The sad reality is that duncan only looks at himself that buyed ust at 1,00$, and want to recover his loss. He want to take money from the newest investors to make the repeg possible. This is not the way. New ustc buyers are giving fuel and hope to the project. They buy the prospective that this is algo stable that can repeg. New investor make repeg possible, they buy to get rewarded for this, not to lose 50% and be f***d off.
5 Likes
OK, 2 things here:
-
This proposal up in the OP is only for L1 work. Nothing else! If it passes our team will focus on L1 work and finishing the Q1 + Q2 roadmaps. Any USTC repeg proposal has to go through governance on its own, with its own spending prop, and its own engineers/programmers. As stated in the OP, the team we’ve assembled will not be wasting time on non-L1 work! If there comes a time that a USTC proposal passes then it’s going to be implemented by whoever is paid by the USTC spending proposal. Obviously the L1 team might be asked to provide instruction or expertise, but their main focus is and will remain L1 work.
-
Duncan’s USTC prop isn’t a focused repeg plan, it’s more of a fork as you yourself outlined. So in order for it to be implemented it would need to pass governance (which it didn’t), then a team would need to be assembled for it (which currently doesn’t even exist), and there would have to be a spending proposal to pay whoever would be implementing it (again, I doubt this will ever happen). So it’s extremely unlikely Duncan’s idea will be put into practice. And even if it was, our L1 team wouldn’t be implementing it since their focus is L1 work (Q1 + Q2 deliverables). So rest easy, you don’t have to worry about any repeg plans diverting our team from their L1 work.
Hope that clears it up! 
4 Likes