One important clarification: this proposal has nothing to do with the Terra Rebels.
Since:
- Terra Rebel’s have been looking for funding as part of a business plan or model since its inception, and that
- you stated that developers are the key aspect of this proposal “The community has spent 6 months talking about paying devs, but ‘paying devs’…”, and
- two core developers who are fairly recognized with Terra Rebels’ (they are founders) are proposed signers (even if one has stated if a certain proposal passes he would step down from all organizations to remain neutral; and the other has stated “if a suitable ‘key-holder’ can be found to replace me, then that would be great” and you stated “indicated a willingness to step down from TR as well if needed” - their efforts to date have been the focus of many, for good reason, regarding development and vision of the Layer 1 and chain), and
- the majority of those, if not all of those, suggested as new signers, have recognized Terra Rebels, who is seeking funding, as the primary effort toward development, and
- funds that may benefit Terra Rebel’s greatly, and would drive a specific vision of the chain forward (where it is, in my estimation not as much community driven, as it was originally proposed, as primarily developer lead - recognizing that some developer leading is appropriate as it seeks feedback and governance broad based proposals for direction)
- The canonical classic-core repository is owned by one of the developers, as a proposed signer, and a founding member of Terra Rebels (source 1 and source 2)
I would disagree and state this has a lot to do with Terra Rebels’. That does not mean that some things I listed are necessarily bad in and of themselves, but they are realities, can become hindrances if not balanced, and I think it would be less than honest to say it does not affect Terra Rebel’s, nor that Terra Rebel’s would not affect it, nor to say that Terra Rebels’ would not most likely be the major beneficiary of it.
In my estimation, personally, as an initial concern, this proposal, at least as it is currently written, too closely mixes Terra Rebel’s business plan with funds that, at least according to the discussion, may end up being transferred to the full Terra v1 governance community. That is not said in order to create impossible hurdles, given the circumstances, but to share honest concerns that have reasonable solutions (such, as one example, to exchange, send to the community pool, and use community spend proposals based on major milestones).
The population of people on the chain who have performed significant technical proof of work, on a consistent basis, to revive LUNC is quite small.
I would venture to guess that the amount of people who have put in hundreds of hours of work toward restoration is much larger than you or I actually see, and ranges quite beyond developers - even though software development is a primary aspect toward restoration. The problem is, as an observation, that it appears you are only seeing those who you work among as contributors, you, and maybe those you are working with, then become the determination of proof of work (who is and who is not doing proof of work).
The plan doesn’t take over the chain in any way. It is a proposal to budget and administer $4.x million of community funds in a way that advances the development of the chain. The alternative to this slate would be a slate with significantly less proof of technical work, which would likely mean significantly less community trust.
The statement I am about to make is not meant to disparage any individual, the work that Terra Rebels has done (or past member of Terra Rebels who are still closely contributing to Terra Rebel’s goals), or to state that the community has not benefited from those contributions, nor to state that there are not still things I can respect about the individuals involved (while also being honest about concerns).
Please do not misunderstand me, there have been aspects that predate (including the prior classic-agora post as one small example), and include others beyond yourself, and are beyond this particular proposal discussion, and the money referred to, and individually some of those situations may have seemed innocent enough on their own (some not so much - at least to me), but when I put them together they have contributed, personally, toward my concerns in general, in addition to the concerning aspects of broad discretion of the proposal outlined in this discussion specifically.
While you did not write it, even this article, as a recent example, and the idea of the proposed signers being an “interim senate”, of collaborators where the majority have worked very close together (and therefore may not consider broader views that are not presently represented in the group), can make fairly unilateral decisions with $4M, and therefore vision that can be carried out without as much community guidance, or accountability, is concerning.
If you can not see how this could easily become essentially, or in fact, a take over of the chain, or of influence over the chain, then you are too close to see it - which in and of itself is a personal concern.
The offer on the table was “if the community can agree on a slate of leaders to manage these funds in order to pay for ongoing development work needed to ensure the survival of the chain, I think the signers would be happy to hand over the funds.” The deal was not described as, “please liquidate these tokens so that you can burn 16 billion LUNC, or have 16 billion LUNC sit in the community pool, so that the community can vote every single expense via direct democracy.”
Have you specifically asked if the current multi-signature wallet holders would consider:
- liquidating the assets, after legal review by an attorney, suggesting that it be paid out of the wallet proceeds, shows the money is actually clear, and any other outstanding expenses, and
- send it to the Terra v1 community fund in the form of an on-chain asset, with the understanding that it is to be used for Layer 1 development
- and administered on a major mile stone basis of community spend proposals into multi-signature wallets of the grant recipient projects that have applied through a community spend proposal? (with mid to large projects each needing milestones to be accomplished before governance should consider the next milestone proposal).
I mean, we are talking:
- requirements and design;
- code complete and test ready (or appropriate project management milestone for any potential non-software development specific aspects toward Layer 1 software development or Infrastructure), and
- product tested, reworked, and shipped/accepted/deployed (with appropriate external and security review)
3 or 4 milestones (depending on how the tasks for the milestones are grouped) for mid to large scale projects … Each project having their own multi-signature wallet and dealing with their own project management (and if successful then being able to propose the next round of funding in a community spend proposal, and having to make the case they have met their prior milestone)… That seems pretty reasonable and fairly standard in funding.
I don’t think that is bringing every single expense forward to governance for a proposal and vote - it is providing accountability back to the Terra v1 governance community while providing for the milestone set by the project requesting the grant (and agreed upon or not by governance).
I will ask again: How many financial decisions has the community managed to make, to reward individual proof of work, over the last 6 months?
Well, considering that the community pool has been rather depleted until recently, I think that may not be the right question.
One potential question could be: does governance make decisions that can impact the future direction of the chain, or bypass that responsibility and:
- allow a group of nine people (where 5 out of 9 determine funding decisions),
- a majority of them aligned in a very specific vision of what the chain will become (recognizing, as a general principle, that those who hold the finances, for good or bad, are really those who make the decisions in many practical aspects),
- to do that with a significant amount of money that according to your proposal discussion description, states would be transferred, if transferred, as Terra v1 governance community funds and therefore for Terra v1 governance community to use at its discretion, toward infrastructure, and the maintenance of the Layer 1
- without much of an outline of accountability procedure for governance to use regarding fiduciary responsibility that would normally be required managing and spending that amount of money?
The alternative to this slate would be a slate with significantly less proof of technical work, which would likely mean significantly less community trust.
I do not believe there should be an alternative, since I do not believe there should a new multi-signature wallet, and instead this should work through the community pool, using milestones, as community spend proposals.
I realize that the current signers of the multi-signature wallet may not agree to those conditions (although it would be helpful to ask I believe). At that point, I guess it would be up to governance, if this proposal discussion leads to a proposal, for each member of the Terra v1 governance community to consider the merits and concerns on both sides, and decide if they are willing to agree to the terms you have stated in this discussion. As one member of governance, among many, I still, for the present time, and in the present version, maintain my concerns as I stated above.
Thank you for taking the time to write and engage with me, particularly since you put a lot of good thought, and time, into your response, and I appreciate it very much.
I hope you are doing well today 