the thing is, we haven’t really heard much from Zaradar unless it was on twitter and him calling us useless idiots that don’t understand what we are talking about.
also last I checked, the community didn’t really have them trying to answer questions 24/7, it was only near the ending of Q1 we wanted to know what work was done and where did that money go?
Well, Bilbo has showing time and time with his activity on other mediums, that he was following what the team was doing and had serious questions, every concern or problem he and others pointed out happened, Bilbo had predicted a chain halt with the upgrade, which of course Zaradar willfully ignored.
the thing with Ed and team, everyone was clinging on to hope, but what we got was a let down.
why not give Bilbo and team the same chance? if they prove their worth, isn’t that worth the hope?
also bad reputation cuts deep, I don’t think that’s something new blood would want to tarnish especially for future work.
this is total nonsense butter chicken brain just because ed and zaradar are letdowns/grifters doesnt mean everyone else is also if they were grifters why would they be attacking after we already gave the entire cp to zaradar and ed to drain?
This is exactly what we had implemented last time. The first time they published a Medium article on the update it was fine, the second time was also fine but after that things just went sideways - there were no proper updates on the Medium articles they were writing and when we asked them why the articles were missing essential information they began avoiding us and blocking us out.
Is there any guarantee that anyone can give us in writing that what happened last time won’t happen this time by implementing the same control measure? I can guarantee you that it won’t happen again if you implement the time tracking app. This isn’t me being narcissistic. This is what normal companies do as well. Otherwise that app wouldn’t have users.
Extremely good point and this is EXACTLY what I am talking about from the morning. That IF we had done the due diligence BEFORE they had begun working, we wouldn’t have been at this position currently.
I have already mentioned how I had tried to tell everyone BEFORE the L1TF began working on Quarter 1 that they are not showing promise of delivery in the future. No one listened. See what has happened now. Even that sly Don who is providing side comments to these discussion knows that.
the thing is, I do agree that everyone should have asked the L1TF before they began the work, which was exactly what I believe Rabbi and others were doing, even Bilbo I believe was asking about the development plan.
the L1 didn’t really provide much, it was mostly “trust me bro”
we can already see in the proposal Rabbi mentioned what the plan would be going towards and also mentioned if there is questions, they will answer, and as we can see Bilbo has already been responding.
also to just add, I haven’t seen a post from Zaradar in agora, yet we have Bilbo trying to answer questions that seems to be set up traps.
I believe he never posted here unless I missed some pre-TR entries.
Im not really surprised given his attitude towards average staker (seen on twitter) and his idea that there needs to be a senate to govern, in his view, less intelligent stakers.
That’s what I’ve been saying for ages - we have to scale up and get LUNC in shape for the bull run!
6/8 currently on board, waiting on the other 2 to confirm. If not, we move ahead with 6/8.
If Tobias had listened at all we wouldn’t be in this situation today, almost a year after the crash with declining price action, an impoverished community pool, and complete lack of investor confidence. But alas here we are, so it’s now up to us to pick up the pieces and rebuild. This community deserves a $1+ LUNC.
Shalom!
There’s no “mockup” roadmap - the plan is to finish the Q1 deliverables, while pursuing the Q2 ones along the way as the team structures their workflow for peak efficiency. We need parity completed and delivered, among other things. The Q2 road map will be purged of all non-L1 initiatives. This team is interested in building on and restoring LUNC, not chasing side-projects. It’s why all the “newcomer” devs have agreed to take massive paycuts to work on restoring the chain, despite being senior engineers.
Thank you for the support!
Hehe, I am, I am… We’ll do our best. LUNC deserves developers who believe in it and its potential!
I agree. Devs should be devving, not wasting time arguing with the community on Twitter.
We just had a doxxed team the past quarter, and look where it got us. Doxxing isn’t any sort of guarantee against bad outcomes. If anything it makes it harder for devs to deliver because they have to worry about being nailed by various predatory government agencies who’re currently waging a war on crypto. Doxxing also gives a false sense of safety where people tend to take what’s being said at face value - just look at all the promises Tobias made, then failed to deliver on all of them. Work should be judged on its own merits; ask questions, do your own research, verity, and don’t trust anyone blindly!
Thanks, a lot of work went into it.
It’s what we all want. Too bad our previous lead devs forgot about that and lost faith in the chain to the point they started chasing side-projects. We’re here for LUNC, nothing else!
I try, heh.
Shalom!
6/8 are already on board. We’re getting a senior dev team for practically peanuts.
No, we don’t. That’s why the dev team is going to focus on devving, not shitposting on Twitter. And Jacob usually sticks to technical matters, he’s nowhere near as bad as Tobias in that regard (who constantly belittles the community and fuds the chain).
Yes, we did.
The previous L1JTF is gone: Ed left, Tobias is chasing a new IRL job, and Superman is missing. They’re not coming back, friend. We either bootstrap a new team, or LUNC stalls in limbo for the foreseeable future and all our investments crater down into oblivion once the wider community (and the crypto space in general) realize that we’ve got no L1 team.
Vinh and Till aren’t senior devs. They’re both talented and will make an amazing addition to any team, but we’ve stacked the deck with devs who are all senior level and have decades of combined experience!
6/8 are on board, and no one’s leaving. They’re all hungry to start ASAP and prove themselves.
Finish the Q1 deliverables while pursuing and working through the Q2 roadmap (sans non-L1 initiatives).
Or to put it simply: work on LUNC L1 without wasting time on pointless side-projects/initiatives.
Kind of scummy of TGF to try and bill the community for him in Q2 despite his absence. As for the Cayman Islands plan, I find it hilarious they were asking for $120,000+ just to cover themselves (due to being doxxed and in the USA). Bad deal all around - just imagine how much actual LUNC work we could get done for all that money!
He has to prove himself first by working pro-bono for at least 1 quarter. He was taking thousands of dollars a month for part-time work, that shouldn’t sit right with anyone in the community.
Yup, that’s the point. We want to protect the CP, and demonstrate value before the 2nd payout.
I think they’ll pop in and answer questions in time. People are just busy with IRL stuff, mostly work.
6/8 are on board. Also, you’re looking at this the wrong way: the aim here is to demonstrate value and revive LUNC, not grift and scam the community pool for peanuts. LUNC has the potential to go to $1+, just imagine how much more money there’s to be made via that path than just a couple grant per quarter from the CP. We want to revive the blockchain - everything else is insignificant compared to that!
Best time to be bullish, IMHO! New quarter, new team, new progress.
Damn right!
Roadmap is Q1 + Q2, purged of all non-L1 nonsense. I’ve mentioned this in the OP.
That’s part of the overall roadmap. Where are you even getting this?
The current L1 team doesn’t exist anymore. All that’s left are Frag and Vinh. If they want to join up that’ll be amazing (and we’d love to have them!), but if not the senior engineering team we’ve put together have more than enough knowhow to proceed ahead on their own.
Bilbo’s only one of a handful of seniors we propose to have on the L1 staff. He’ll be handling community communication (in addition to his L1 coding duties), but you’re asking for blanket statements from a person who’s 1/8th of the overall team. Of course parity is on the roadmap and will be pursued (we need it for the repeg plan, among other things). Coordination and cooperation with TFL is a given, Jared has proved to be a friendly and supportive liaison, our L1 team will definitely want to build a good relationship with him (but not to the point of becoming overly reliant on TFL - LUNC and its devs have to stand on their own feet).
The swap algo needs a redesign from the group up, with additional CC and peg defense mechanisms stacked on top of it like a wedding cake. We’re working on it. We’ve been working on it for weeks, but it requires not just coding know-how but fintech and game theory knowledge as well. Be patient, it’ll get done - we need the swaps for everything else that’s coming later on.
Duncan and Ziggy are separate from this L1 proposal, and are their own thing. We’re not affiliated with either. Duncan is free to submit and propose his initiatives to the best of his ability, and the community will decided whether to fund them and him. We wish him luck, but his work is in no way tied to this L1 team we’ve put together.
No it’s not. It falls beyond the scope of this proposal and the L1 team. USTC repeg work is tangentially related to LUNC, but if this proposal passes the L1 team we’ve assembled won’t spend community money chasing it while ignoring core LUNC work - they’ll be paid to deliver on the L1 roadmap(s), and nothing else.
Nope. It’s beyond the scope of the L1 team, work, roadmap, and this prop. Though I agree with you in principle - the swaps have to be solved, and USTC repegged. But that’s an initiative for another time… and another prop. If you have any ideas please feel free to submit them here to Agora in their own thread!
Not true. Tobias wanted to mentor junior devs. We, on the other hand, have assembled a senior team that can self-direct, self-research, and work either as solo units or together. That’s what you get when you put together engineers who’ve lead teams themselves. The training docs are a nice idea, and could possibly be pursued later on once we get to the point that LUNC has recovered and we start onboarding a sizeable amount of junior developers as we scale up the teams. But right now it’s a luxury feature, and as such beyond the scope of this proposal and funding. I know Bilbo is somewhat partial to the idea, but L1 work needs to be prioritized first and foremost.
Sorry, not gonna happen. Priority is finishing the Q1 and Q2 roadmaps, not writing a wiki!
Sure we can. They’ll do great work which will then generate hype and pump LUNC’s price.
Only if the community decides to waste it on pointless side-projects. But that’s not ours to decide, it falls to the community to remain skeptical and judicious about which initiatives they vote for.
Wrong on all counts, but alright.
Nope. Going the non-profit route requires legal council, additional expenditures, and generates tradfi problems like taxation for the doxxed individuals (and additional headaches for the org itself given how many laws regulate such things). There’s no point going in that direction. We’re broke, as a chain, we need to prioritize who and what we fund… and chasing the tradfi dragon is certainly a step in the wrong direction. Also, this spending prop is for a couple thousand dollars per person - the $120k is overall, over the course of the 3 months!
I have no idea where you’re getting these assumptions from. They’re all senior developers, they don’t need a nanny to crack the whip on their backs 24/7.
Lolwut? Dude, just stop. You’re making 0 sense.
As I outlined in the OP, we have 4 team leads available. Take your pick.
Sorry, but you’re not a part of the L1 staff we’ve assembled.
You can do that on your own, you don’t have to piggyback off this team and proposal. Do the pitching by yourself, and open a new thread to present your idea(s). If the community approves, they’ll support you.
There will be no Oversight Committee for this team - that’s the community at large. We don’t need more centralization; we don’t need non-technical people bossing around the engineers whose job is to code and provide useful updates for the chain. All the investors who hold LUNC are the oversight committee, and they’re the ones who will decide if this team is funded, and for how long they remain in their position (depending on work demonstrated and code shipped).
Please stop trying to turn this proposal into something that it was never meant to be. If you want a CoC then spin up a thread here on the Agora and outline your plan. Petition the community and hash it out with them. Also, all the people you’ve mentioned either don’t want that job, or have already left it.
Funding will be distributed automatically if the proposal passes (spending prop on the Station). We don’t need doxxing. Crypto is supposed to be anonymous, decentralized, and trustless - the engineering team will continue to uphold that spirit both in work rendered and payment realized.
I thank you for leaving indepth feedback, but as I said: you ought to pursue the endeavors you’ve outlined as separate projects here on the Agora. This proposal – and the L1 team – is for LUNC L1 work, nothing else.
Correct!
The engineers will figure out the most efficient approach. They’re all seasoned pros.
Thanks for the support! Shalom!
Unless there’s some drastic change in the near future, this should be the final one.
Some already are. Others prefer to remain anonymous.
We tried to make it s a low-impact as possible on the CP while also making the salaries at least somewhat fair… tho to be honest, all the senior devs are being grossly underpaid. I suppose it’s the price of acceptance around these parts, they have to prove themselves first.
Cheers!
Bilbo isn’t your house servant. His job is to write code and push updates that’ll drive the price action of LUNC while repairing the chain’s functionality and onboarding new features. He has generously agreed to provide community updates when needed at no extra increase to his salary, but that doesn’t mean he’ll be spending 24/7 hanging around the Agora.
The difference is a group of seasoned professionals who’ll keep their mouths shut while doing a stellar job, versus a petulant manbaby who can’t shut up for one day while insulting the entire community online one person at a time. If you don’t see the difference then there’s little I can say or do to change your mind.
We considered that initially, but the payment redistribution is meant to account for (unlikely) cases like a dev getting sick or being unable to work for whatever IRL reason partway through the quarter (or in case they refuse right away, bump up the salaries of the remaining ones to allow more work hours). In such cases the extra money would go to the others, to pay for overtime, so we don’t have to waste additional days putting up and passing more spending proposals. It’s a feature meant to expedite work and cover unforeseen IRL problems via a backup contingency.
Thank you, we discussed it for a long time before committing.
Shalom!
They’ll stop by the thread sooner or later, I think they’re just busy today. As for Snake, he’s a team-lead senior with 15+ years of experience, and offering him $0 or $2500 or $5000 isn’t much of a difference given how much he’s worth, we’d still be grossly underpaying him. I can ask him if he’d accept $2500 as a token gesture as you suggest, but I’m afraid the community is already on the fence about Q2 spending prop amounts, and going any higher than $120,000 might jeopardize the chance of this proposal passing @JESUSisLORD. Do you think it’s worth the risk? I personally feel bad about him not being paid as well, but I’m not sure if the community would agree.
Yes, this team and this spending prop is for L1 work, and L1 work only. And you can quote me on that! No side-projects, no Ziggys, no AI chains - only LUNC! We don’t have anything against those initiatives, but they have to be funded via their own separate spending proposals, instead of piggybacking on the L1 team!
I wanted it like that as well, but the engineers explained it’s sometimes hard to gauge progress on a monthly, linear basis. Update tend to be asymmetric. Hence the 2-month time frame to judge their work. Keep in mind they don’t get the other half unless another spending prop passes through governance 8 week after this one does, so it’s not like they can elope with the money if they don’t deliver the goods!
Thanks you!
If you’re talking about Jacob then I can assure you there won’t be any problems now that Tobias is gone. Jacob’s already done a ton of work on LUNC, and paying him for his Cosmos expertise will be huge for the chain.
They’ll stop by the thread. Feel free to ask them when they do!
Why would this prop and team have anything to do with Binance?
If you were on Discord I’d point you to them there, but since you’re not you’ll have to wait a bit until they get some time to stop by the thread and answer your questions here.
Dude I have a life outside the Agora! Some of us have to work for a living, lol.
Every dev is unknown at first. Gadikian is only hated by Tobias and his fanboys. Everyone on the previous L1 team was part-time, except for Tobias. I have no problem with putting up a full-time spending prop, but the salaries would be increased by x3-5. The people in the L1 we’ve assembled are all senior developers, the chain can’t currently afford to employ them full time. Having them all working part-time is better than paying for fewer of them full-time, because it’s always better to have more devs who can help each other solve problems.
I’d make more money doing nothing to help LUNC and shorting it than writing “scam proposals” that don’t even pay me anything! Be glad I hold LUNC and have an interest in it appreciating, otherwise you’d be at the mercy of Tobias and the TGF right now.
By focusing on work, instead of pointless arguing. Honestly Arubasu, if you want to argue come to one of the LUNC Discords. This thread should be reserved for important questions and technical explanations.
We’ve been working on the whitepaper on our own time. It has no bearing on the L1 roadmap. Stop making mountains out of molehills and looking for things to argue about.
That’s a no, chief. Devs aren’t zoo animals, nor will they be treated as such.
If they don’t produce good work they won’t get paid and re-hired, simple as.
I don’t think Anne needs or wants you to white-knight for her!
Settle down, we all want the same thing here. You have no idea how good of a team we’ve put together here. You’ll see after Q2 is done. We have an all-star assembly, and they’ve agreed to work for a relative pittance because they believe in the long-term potential of this chain and its future.
There’s $250k+ in the CP right now. If this proposal passes, the team gets $60k. Then another $60k if the community votes for that 2 months after the 1st prop has gone live. I think we’ll manage to find the money in the CP by then. You’re dramatizing things for no reason.
I was guessing you would say something like this at some point of time since you are not a technical person and I am continuously saying that.
Please try to understand that you do not know how this is to be achieved. This does not ONLY involve TFL. Nor does it ONLY involve what is mentioned in Q1+Q2. If YOU yourself don’t know how this is to be done, the senior devs and the junior devs will not tell you. This work will drag on till next year. Trust me on what I am saying. I am a developer and I have worked in a development team with other developers. It doesn’t work this way. There is a high level planning which is to be done and only a systems architect can do it. Have you interviewed any of the developers to know whether or not anyone is a systems architect among them? Will they be able to do this work also?
There is absolutely no guarantee of this and no matter how much you change the words to tell me the same thing in different ways, you or Bilbo are not being able to provide us with a guarantee of parity which will be achieved this or the next quarter.
You want to say that if we do all the points in the task list, parity will be achieved. Really? And who has informed you of that? Which dev? Please ask this dev to come here and explain how that is to be done and mention the tasks from the task list which are to be done chronologically to achieve this.
Another example of the fact that you are not a technical person to comment on this. The swap module has nothing to do with the repeg. Without the swap, we literally can’t swap between currencies. That’s like basic. The wallets are just sitting there without this swap mechanism active. Also, it has nothing to do with an algorithm like the one proposed by Duncan. That’s different. That creates a stable coin. I am taking about a swap module which uses a swap pool to do the swaps.
No. It does not. Just don’t say something to sound technical. This is serious stuff. We are not joking here. Please ask the developer who you are working with to come here and comment on this and discuss this with us so that we can provide the developer with options and ideas about how this can be done. What is required is a pool, not game theory or an algorithm. This can be done in less than a week’s time.
Again, you have no idea about the work to be done and why the previous team did not take up the work to be actually done.
Without new developers onboarding onto the platform, your grand plan of seeing LUNC succeed is gonna fail. It’s as simple as that.
Tobias isn’t completely stu(pid.
Exactly. So you are NOT taking responsibility for this. You are only taking responsibility to help fund the team from the Community Pool. This is non-sustainable as mentioned previously.
No. Not at all. I am serious. Since you do not have any responsibility to fill it, we will need to consider it when running it dry.
Money can’t just flow out like water. This isn’t charity we are doing here.
I can already see where this is heading. We are about to do a TR or L1TF again. Great.
these are my concerns. I’m curious about @RabbiJebediah and the L1 team’s opinion on these issues.
1. Gadikan and a bunch of developers come back (I’m not worried about them coming. uncertainty about change) 2. End binance support.(we need more support) 3. The chain tax should be increased and new applications should not be produced. (@dfunk’s 3-tier recommendation is reasonable) 4. Let’s reduce the volume 5. the chain has become unlivable and (Game Over)
No it won’t. Stop presenting your assumptions as facts.
Tell me you haven’t read the OP without telling me you haven’t read the OP.
Bonus answer: Snake is one as well. Which means we’ve got 2 on the team.
Oh Arubasu, if you only knew, if you only knew…
I’ve got about 20 pages of repeg whitepaper on my desk right now…
Most of the exogenous modules tie back into the swaps, in one way or another.
Please don’t talk about things you have only a cursory and superficial knowledge of.
Nowhere did I said it did, stop putting words in my mouth.
Here’s a brain teaser for you: what do phase diagrams have to do with the swap algos?
You have no idea how out of your depth you are. We’ve spent months working on this.
Lmao, he thinks swaps will work with just a pool while ignoring CC, pressure vectors, (arb) incentives…
Dude, just stop. The things you’re saying were my intro reading about 6 months ago!
Anyway, can we please stay on topic? This is an L1 spending proposal, not a USTC repeg thread.
Correct. If you want to discuss a USTC repeg, you can do it in one of the designated threads.
More baseless assumptions.
I dunno what to tell you man, you’re chasing imaginary monsters here.
Try to stay on topic, instead of fabricating nonsense that has no bearing in reality.
I am really starting to think you are on a mission to really FUD this up.
you are claming Rabbi doesn’t have the knowledge or saying he is not technical and doesn’t know what he’s talking about? how very Zaradar’ish of you.
please explain, when LBA put up a proposal, does he have in depth technical knowledge? if I recall he is not a dev at all, yet he can put up proposals? why is it different for Rabbi?
another thing is how quick you are to claim this team that agreed to help the chain is not good enough, without even them having a chance to prove themselves.
I understand these past months feel like a bad roller coaster of grifts and scams, it sucks I know because we are ALL feeling the brunt of it, in the end we want this to grow and if the team says they want to work on L1 LUNC only development, no side chains or time wasting wiki-docs, then I say they need a chance.
please understand, I want LUNC to truly grow and we all make it one way or another, but your approach is massive FUD.
Seems like you are quite sure you will be able to manage this team and that you know what to do. You are taking complete responsibility for it.
Does this sound fair? Oh ya, it’s unfair to the developers. But we can’t help that since I will only speak for the community/investors currently and what is in their best interests.
Btw you are asking us to give you this money while remaining completely undoxxed. While I can still support this plan, I cannot support this scheme of payment to a non-doxxed individual. I had said the same thing during Faffy, said the same thing during TR and L1TF and I am saying it now again. That the money needs to go to a caretaker who is doxxed. We do not have TGF currently so you need to think of an alternative if you do not plan to get doxxed @RabbiJebediah
I don’t know these devs but I like the pay structure and method a lot better than the LBA prop. We don’t really have much of a choice tbf so here’s hoping it works, all or broke time.
Fair play Rabi, you’ve always been creative with solutions and this is one I can get behind.
Thank you for the consideration on this. I will leave that decision up to the community. Whatever they choose for this quarter in regards to my compensation, whether it be $2,500 or $0 I will support. I’m a holder of LUNC too just like anyone else. I just want to see the chain start heading in the right direction just like everyone else here does, so I’m here to be of service to the chain and the community during this time of difficult (and uncertain) transition so that we can start making forward moving progress for the chain again and get to where we need to be going.
This is true. I had a brief conversation with Pholuna about this earlier in the Terra Allies server as well. At the end of the day, while blockchains are complex software, they aren’t exactly special - all software is inherently complex and at the end of the day what we’re trying to do here is work on a distributed system just like any other distributed system out there that powers the modern internet nowadays.
@arunadaybasu I thought you were one of the good guys, but you’re cherry picking everything. Could it be that you also want to do the same thing Zaradar did? Do you want money for doing nothing? I prefer anonymous devs who are truly committed to the chain over a Zaradar, whose face I unfortunately know. A doxxed dev is of no use to me. I know that the members of this team want the same thing as I do, and I will support them no matter what.
Would you be able to clarify your skillset or expertise to us? What do you work on exactly? Have you worked on the terra-money repo before this? Are you a Go developer?
In terms of systems architecture, could you give us an example of a system that you have designed or worked on professionally?
New quarter, new team, new progress.
