In my opinion people need to have an incentive to work for the ecosystem.
One form of remuneration will be the presentation of reasoned projects, where they present the necessary funds for the various stages of development. If the project proposal is approved by the community, these funds would be released through the presentation of results.
1 Like
And big NO from me. We have already good idea of more transparent grants program followed by @ek826 here: Promote Chain Utility via Establishment of the Terra Classic Grants Program. I will repeat my predecessors - put resources into community pool.
8 Likes
Iāve been here since the start. Their long term efforts, vision, burning, work behind the scenes to aid TR and sense of humor created the entire revival. He joked about creating LUNC dating apps and similar to make others laugh in a tough market. Thatās how the whole revival happened and why it did a 10X while everything else decreased in value. Maybe you need to do some research on what humor is
1 Like
Agreed.
8 Likes
I agree devs need to get paid. No doubt about it. If devs full time then full time pay is fair. I know I want to be paid for the work I do and so does everyone else. I think we all agree devs should be paid. We want TR to continue their work and help rebuild this Chain. But this proposal sounds sketchy and I donāt think that was the intention. I think the community is apprehensive of anyone controlling large amounts of money after the death spiral. I appreciate the back story and some details regarding the funds.
Hey A.E.,
Thanks for your thoughtful questions.
One important clarification: this proposal has nothing to do with the Terra Rebels. Ed just transitioned out of TR and I left a while ago. There are 2 current members of TR on it (Tobias and Max). Max and even Tobias indicated a willingness to step down from TR as well if needed.
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. Marventus declined the offer citing the chainās endless āGame of Thronesā decentralized politics. Rexyzās name came up as well, and there were also suggestions for a second Cosmos OG. But it was unavoidable that Terra Rebels alumni received a significant representation on any proof-of-technical-work-based Multisig list.
The plan doesnāt 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 community has not been able to agree on any compensation framework for devquant / āwhite collarā work on behalf of the chain, after months of talking about it. Everyone on this list (other than Jack Z) has put in hundreds of hours of their own time into this chain for free.
The offer on the table was āif 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.ā The deal was not described as, āplease 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.ā
The community has spent 6 months talking about paying devs, but āpaying devsā is a deceptively simple summary of a complicated question.
Who decides how much each community member has contributed? How are different people supposed to be compensated for different work? What kinds of work are lower value vs higher value? Who oversees the progression of more complex assigned tasks? This is why management exists in the real world. These arenāt simple questions, FatManās glib sneer notwithstanding.
The only scalable solution, in my opinion, is for this community to nominate a diverse slate of leaders with applied experience in management, blockchain engineering, and DeFi, as well as significant community trust, and delegate authority to them to make many smaller-level decisions on the communityās behalf. Having a 1-month public shouting match over every single financial decision is unsustainable.
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?
7 Likes
As a former Jump employee. I nominate @FatMan
2 Likes
The signatories should not be involved in the day to day running of the revival
They should give their time for free because they donāt depend on the TC revival to pay bills
We need
People of good standing in the community who are volunteers who donāt need commercial incentives
Like school Governors - they are volunteers who want the school to succeed.
When youāre signatories and being paid to work then there is a massive conflict of interest
Iāve ran a recruitment company since 2002
I am very familiar with how individuals need to get compensated
Itās not rocket science
What I need to know is
How many hours are ppl working on the project
What is their remuneration package
Itās as simple as that
Every timesheet submitted is counter signed āProof of Workā as you make sayā¦
So first letās build a recruitment Module
Ps Iāve built one and happy to put it on the TC blockchain (Iāve built a Healthcare marketplace with recruitment and compliance modules built in)
Happy to use the frontend and add blockchain to the backend to create a transparent recruitment module for everyone whoās working on the Terra Classic revival
I think itās plain to see thereās too many ppl with limited real world experience who somehow found themselves in the limelight and now struggling to put in infrastructure to support its growth
@FatMan can be an A$$hole at times but he can also give hard hitting constructive feedback
3 Likes
I can see both sides having good points for and against. A lot of the way I feel about it comes down to the knowledge of the wallet. Was this something everyone knew about already (including us lowly people that just delegate and vote) and was being held for something specific or is it more of a newer revelation to the community? If itās the former, some more details might need hammered out. For the latter, go for it. If you screw it up weāre out a lot of money but weāre out a lot of money we didnāt know was available. Hard to miss something you didnāt know existed two days ago.
1 Like
A few thoughts:
It makes sense to separate decentralized governance and decentralized finance from development and marketing, so that LUNC recovery can move forward more nimbly.
Iām glad to see Coach Bruce on the list. He clearly understands marketing, and is quickly able to assess new conditions, factors, and opportunities. Heās not stuck on the past, and can sense where things could/should go for Lunc to stay relevant.
You donāt want people who are 1) myopic and stuck on an idea or the past, 2) only care about the perfect immaculate purity of code.
The best entrepreneurs Iāve known value their time high. I worked for one startup developer who told me (to paraphrase), āGrin, for every project I take on, I make sure I earn $350 an hour. Thatās my minimum. Thatās what Iāve decided I am worth.ā
In that way you do need people who see the future value of what is being created. They may extract some value, because they have a sense of self worth, but they also have to be properly incentivized to make everything greater, to create ultimate success for all investors.
The revival of Lunc (and maybe USTC) is not just an elegant math problem that can be solved with a bigger, better algorithm.
It is a war of hearts and minds. It will require telling a story on a mass scale. We have to keep attention on Lunc.
Friends, there are new stories being born in crypto multiple times a day. All shout for attention. āThe first X chain. The first Y protocol. Cooler than apes.ā
Iām in favor of empowering people with vision and expertise to move Lunc forward at rocket speed, to new heights.
Four million dollars is insignificant at the scale we are working at. So much so that the funds were nearly forgotten.
I appreciate Alex chasing that rabbit down the hole. Itās a bit like found money, imho. He showed initiative and wits to make this a possibility.
That makes me inclined to nod my head and say, okay bad boy. You got what you wanted, now go knock out socks off.
If you object, ask yourselfā¦ Did you know the money existed? Did you figure out how to go get it? Do you know what to do with it?
As long as there is some periodic accountability built in, why not give these folks a shot?
7 Likes
I agree with you Vegas. The community should avoid duplicate or parallel structures.
Community owned funds should be allocated to the community pool (after being exchanged into LUNC on the open market).
3 Likes
If it help to structure you guys in a more professionnal way without having childish twitter craps like the few last weeks againts each others. I would vote this wallet to keep 20% of the asset either liquified or in stake mode that you can withdraw overtime to pay yourself for the work, but you have neblio also ? that 5k include also a salary side on neblio deal ? we will need more details. I dont mind 5k a month if you guys provide the hours, work for that 5k but its a very good wageā¦so we would expect work to be accomplished not just some partime job.
The remaining asset should simply be used to eventualy collateralise USTC revival or any AFT token we plan to use to speed up the burn of the Lunc, i dont see the point in having a big chunk of cash sleeping for years doing nothing there, or use the reward from staked asset to burn weekly lunc.
Zeusdraco
1 Like
I think it is necessary to recover those funds and I also believe that who work to improve our blockchain, in a professional and structured way, should be compensated. Moreover, I believe that a core team may help to be quicker and effective for decision making, however this goes against the decentralization of our system.
A few thoughts:
- What is the rationale behind the $5k compensation? Are those who will be working on the chain will do it as a full-time job?
- The people āhiredā to do the job should be real a.k.a name, surname and a nice pic! Their CV should be also accessible. The hiring part should also be carried out with rigorous methods, multiple candidates should be considered, a few selected.
- How many months/years those funds will be able to cover the expenses? I think that a tentative budget with cashflows and estimated burn rate should be provided. How much do you think is needed for maintenance and upgrade of LUNC chain?
- Authorization should be granted wit at least 7 votes out of 9.
- About the possible litigation, the salary seems enough for the developers to buy an insurance to cover that possibility. Have you considered that possibility?
Overall remark, why not to start with a trial phase of about 6 months? If you define a budget, we may allocate part of the $4.2M and the rest send it to the community pool. In case more funds are needed will be necessary to pass through a proposal etc etc.
Still, I do not understand why you are not into the already existent governance system for getting funds to support a given activity.
1 Like
I agree with @Vegas .
1 Like
Not sure how you going to spend ~$4.15M. normally people have annually butget plan.
540k go to your salary next year 2023, how about remaining 3.61M ?
I respect your work, but this proposal is very not clear on how you going to spend ~$4.15M.
540K only for the following duty, no development work? Need to know what is your annual budget, it is hard to justify 540K management fee
Community has no control the the mulitsig wallet. cannot see how community can replace the signers, only signers have the private key can replace the signer. I suggest keep the majority of fund in community pool, then we can fund you team year by year. If Clear failure of a Signer, then we can stop funding the signers.
Jumpman, I am flattered by the suggestion but I would not be willing to associate my name with a highly suspect āgovernanceā strategy like this one.
Even if we buy the (incorrect) notion that a centralized committee should usurp on-chain governance, thereās just way too much bloat. Each signer is being paid an over median full-time salary for arranging and tracking proposals. 9 people, $540k/year, out of a $4m pot! Itās too much, especially considering the randoms on there like StrathCole who have made a few tweets here and there and thatās it.
If itās about ādecentralizationā and āuniting tribes,ā why isnāt ClanMudhorn on there? Vegas? Any of the other thought leaders you had issues with? Itās literally the USTN crew plus sycophants. The whole thing about Do Kwon secretly arranging these funds for you via direct message is very suspect as well.
This entire scheme is a silly idea and should probably be scrapped. If, for some reason, the community is dumb enough to proceed, like they did with the burn tax, the drain rate should be reduced by removing the randoms that no one has ever heard of from the signer list.
Itās painful to watch the same community get exploited over and over and over and over and over again, each method more creative than the last.
3 Likes
Really sad to hear some comments against this prop even after Zaradar and Ed strongly support it.
The more we fight, demonize and push away people, the less success LUNC will have in the future.
Alex put himself out there to bring us that money from Do Kwon and now we act like this is something bad?
What if we just didnāt had it?
A lot of people need to DYOR and think about their priorities and wether LUNC is a coin they want to be invested in, in the future.
We canāt keep fighting over every detail and issue, halting the whole development of the chain while trying to figure out a solution.
A solution was suggested, a grand majority is in favour of it as well as our smartest heads working for free on LUNC since day 1 and we should go for it!
2 Likes
Can you clarify on your assertion that Ed has transitioned out of Terra Rebels? I have seen no news of this anywhere. Not on his Medium, not on his Twitter, nor from Ed alone himself. Please back up this claim with tangible proof.
I have to agree with Vegas here. This kind of centralization is antithetical to the ethos of the decentralized LUNC ecosystem.
On another note, and Iām trying to keep things as clean as possible, certain uncomfortable things have to be said: I do not trust the proponents to act in good faith with these funds.
There have been multiple occasions in which they have been shown to be actively hostile to recovery efforts, the community, and have put forward a number of dubious or outright malicious proposals. People with this track record should not be allowed to have any form of access to these funds. Behavior like this would be absolutely inexcusable in any other professional setting.
I fear that the results of this proposal, were it to pass, would be catastrophic for the community and the chain itself.
3 Likes
One important clarification: this proposal has nothing to do with the Terra Rebels.
Since:
- Terra Rebelās 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 āThe community has spent 6 months talking about paying devs, but āpaying devsāā¦ā, and
- two core developers who are fairly recognized with Terra Rebelsā (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 āif a suitable ākey-holderā can be found to replace me, then that would be greatā and you stated āindicated a willingness to step down from TR as well if neededā - 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 Rebelās 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 Rebelsā. 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 Rebelās, nor that Terra Rebelās would not affect it, nor to say that Terra Rebelsā 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 Rebelās 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 doesnāt 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 Rebelās 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 āinterim senateā, 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 āif 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.ā The deal was not described as, āplease 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.ā
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 ā¦ 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)ā¦ That seems pretty reasonable and fairly standard in funding.
I donāt 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 
5 Likes