Exactly a cash grab. WHAT THE HELL EVEN IS THIS PROP. Why is the guy who proposed 500b mint still allowed a platform AND proposed to be getting $5000 a month. TR need to cut ties with this type of nonsense ASAP. Guys seriously. Get back to following your own damn roadmap. All of these random props popping up everytime make us look like chumps!! Where is the assesment of the effects of 0.2% tax by the way? All it did was give new validators (and existing ones) a giant tax break. Just look at delegations that happened recently. PRO TIP: The same FUDer has sponsored it. Stop having your name associated with this person!
1 Like
What cash grab? Itās just a self-elected non-meritocratic undemocratic centralized committee of nine people seeking a modest compensation of $540,000 per year for organizing grant proposals. Nothing to see here. Itās totally not the case that people who are trusted by the community are now abusing said trust for their own personal financial gain.
Sigh. Itās all so tiresome. Iām honestly really sad & disappointed, expected this from many people but not from Alex.
5 Likes
Im going to vote NO! simply because its written by a man with bad intentions. Alex has caused a lot of stress and burden in the community by his ill actions. This man cannot be trusted.
2 Likes
This proposal should be broken up into three proposals
-
Proposal to decide to receive these wallets keys
-
Proposal of who will be custodians of the wallet keys
-
Proposal of how to appropriate funding from wallets
-
Proposal to move forward with receiving funds is a signaling proposal to ensure community support to move forward with the second proposal
-
Deciding on custodians should not be overlooked or made simple. With the legal precedence from the collapse of Voyager Digital, we can learn a few key points. āNot your keys not your cryptoā thus I propose a few steps to ensure that community is the sole owner of the funds.
-
All signers must be voted in from the community governance
-
All signers must be fully Doxxed
-
All signers must sign a legally binding document attesting funds are community owned and any use of the funds will be only appropriated after community governance votes that pass governance. This document will create a both criminal and civil liability on the signers for any misappropriation, negligence, .etc
-
The panel of signers should include at least one of each background Dev, Quant, CFO, Laywer, Education, and validator of Lunc chain.
-
Appropriating funding should have a structured limit. I would propose that no more than 25% be used in any fiscal year, the remaining ETH coins to be staked which would gain approximately 210K at current ETH prices annually. Keeping funds in the Eth chain will allow liquidity from other chains which can help hold value within the LUNC chain. For example, if ETH were sold to buy LUNC for the community wallet then you would have a taxable event in the sale, buying up coins for the community pool, then every time funds are sold from the community pool you would have loss of liquidity on Lunc Chain. Therefore, I see it better to keep funds within ETH and access their liquidity. With breaking up the spending to only allow 25% use in any fiscal year, we gain longevity of funding appropriation. For this effort I would say funding from this 25% not be used for 2nd layer funding. Only base layer development and maintenance which includes things for securing the block chain such as LCD endpoints. All funding to be paid in a Proof of Work format. The dev teams should propose there plans through governance with request of funding amounts, The panel of signers will review these requests from dev teams during Agora discussion and post as a group whether they believe the work is required, and the funding request matches, it will however not be the final deciding factor as community governance will still be the end all be all for issuance.
A code of conduct must also be developed and signed by all signers of the ETH wallet to insure highest level of professionalism be maintained at all times.
6 Likes
As others have said more eloquently, this is a dangerous and controversial proposal, it has its merits, but thereās a lot of unanswered questions and a lack of transparency, we need more details.
I may be misinformed, but I havenāt heard of those negotiations with Do Kwon, could you provide any proof ? What about the $4M multiSig wallet ?
Will the signers also receive part of the Neblio sponsorship ?
Concerning your claim of Ed Kim transitioning out of TR, again, I havenāt heard of it, could you provide a proof ?
About the list of signers, āchosen on the basis of mutual respect and proof of workā is quite a vague statement as it is, others have pointed the fact that āat least 3ā people from that list are USTN authors, shouldnāt the list be more heterogeneous ? ( Especially if the bar is as low as 5 votes out of 9 people).
At is stands, the proposal is very worrying, it lacks decentralization and transparency. Couldnāt the community elect the first list of signers ? Will the community be able to see who are each signer ? (identity, qualifications, etc)
1 Like
I would like to see the devs paid for the work as i hope everyone does.
I think itād be best manged through the exisiting proposal 8813, better to have one scheme that manages all the payments than multiple schemes.
Iād prefer to see payments made for work to be initiated/completed not set recurring payments.
Hope we get to a process to adequately remunerate everyone involved. Very thankful for all your work and contributions 
One has to respect Alexās hustle, really. The dude has got game. But, everything he does also seems to turn into an empire building exercise somehow. So, yeah, itās not only a cash grab, but a political power play as well. Itās no wonder that a number of the LUNC polity find his approach seriously off-putting. Speaking of off-puttingā¦ āThis shows that the LUNC Community does not trust the proposed slate of 9 to manage community funds.ā This just looks sour, and manipulative; Itās actually clumsy, and unsubtle. Alex is no master yet clearly, so letās not invite him to perfect his senatorial grifter chops inside Terra Classic, maybe he could start a BSC poo-coin, and be emperor of that.
Here is my proposal, letās pay Alex a finders fee, which he deserves arguably, 0.5% seems eminently fair, and call it good. After that, the funds go to community pool as per Vegas suggestion.
3 Likes
Off chain community assets should be returned to the community pool as $LUNC tokens. Expenses/effort spent in moving the assets to community pool by the named signers should be compensated in the same proposal.
Sustaining $LUNC operations (mainnet/testnet dev support) and continuous improvements/innovation is a critical issue and it should be dealt with all seriousness as an independent activity that focuses on the immediate needs, short term needs and long term needs. I dont see why the two activities need to be mixed in the same proposal.
3 Likes
We need that money for the oracle rewards pool. Its running out fast. That monay belong to all community.!!!
Los fondos fuera de la cadena deben de ir a la comunidad LUNC; estoy de acuerdo que los que trabajan por el beneficio de la comunidad tengan una retribucion pero lo que pretenden cobrar mensualmente hoy es demasiado!!! Propongo que cobren en LUNC ya que su trabajo serĆ” apuestas de que LunC vuelva a ser lo que fue antes de la caida!!! El monto que lo ponga la comunidad!!
I donāt support this. In my personal opinion, community funds should always be returned to the community pool. From there, a percentage allocation can be set aside for Terra Rebels.
If the proponents wish to get paid, then this needs to be expressed in such a way that is both beneficial to the community and the proponents.
Since assets arenāt LUNC/USTC based they will need to be swapped; if not, a second logical option is to create a fund through Edās grants foundation (currently in proposal form).
A secondary issue with the current proposal is presented by the 9 people in charge of the multi-sig wallet. This would centralize community assets. Again, I feel the fair option is to spill these assets into the community pool.
Another alternative could be for the proponents to create an outside organization which will handle these funds. This would have to be proposed to the community and pass governance as a stand alone and clearly defined proposal.
I donāt feel at this time the current proposal is beneficial to the community or the Terra Rebels and it leaves huge gaps for potential lawsuits. Hence, Iām against this proposal.
However, I put my hope in Alex listening to communityās concerns and changing the proposal as he has done in previous scenarios. I urge everyone to see this discussion as an opportunity for change and bring positive change. Arguing will only destroy us.
If Alex and the proponents wish to bring $4M worth of funding to TR, letās help him with constructive ideas on how to achieve this in a way that satisfies the community requirements.
Letās stop attacking each other and work together to better LUNC.
2 Likes
From Alex tweet - The current signers conditions for releasing key are:
1ācome to us with a new group of proven signers who can work together as a team",
2 "describe how the funds will be used to support LUNC development,
3 "have community approve, and signers will releaseā
The current controversy is centred around core issues
1 Trust as to whose names is to be included among the 9 signers
2 New signerās salary
I have read the proposal put forward by Alex and it was well thought out and cover all the conditions and I applaud his effort and drive to sourced out the fund in the first place.
I do not doubt that he will be an added value to the project overall. But in other to move forward with this proposal . I would suggest if
-
Alex would consider removing is name from the list of the signers
-
Reduce the amount of the salary paid monthly to the signers from the suggested $5000/month to between $1200 - $1500 per month.
One of my many reasons is that, the true scope of the work to be carried out by this team will span into many years and cost must be reasonably percentage of the total sum. This could be subject to community review bi-annual or yearly
The community can Futher explore this suggestion to enable us to reach an agreeable concesus
3 Likes
The proposal looks like a thinly veiled attempt to centralised things. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
3 Likes
Itās against decentralization. So needs amendments
1 Like
Thanks! This a prop Iād vote yes on, time to get people paid seriously so they can do the needed work! 
2 Likes
This (horrible) proposal has given me the necessary motivation to participate on Agora discussion. Anyone who might be in favor of this proposal must have a hidden agenda.
The proposal is radically contrary to the spirit of decentralization that characterizes our chain.
In any case, 5 of 8 names have very close relations with Alex. The trust of the community in Alex is low. And trust is a necessary thing to manage funds.
My answer is clearly NO.
I propose to recover the funds, and take them to the community pool
4 Likes
I agree with @Vegas and others that these funds should ideally be recovered, converted to LUNC, placed into the community pool, and distributed to community groups who need funding via the existing governance mechanism of distribution proposals. I see absolutely no justification for having a self-selected committee, paying itself $540k per year, to manage the distribution and monitor ongoing use of the funds.
I suggest that this proposal be replaced with a proposal that establishes the community view on whether a management committee is required for these funds, or whether the existing community pool mechanism should be used.
If a majority of the community feels that a committee structure is required to provide increased agility over and above the existing governance system, then the ongoing selection, removal, replacement of members, definition of membersā duties, committee reporting requirements, level of remuneration of committee members, and committee quorum level should all be the subject of separate governance proposals and separate votes through the existing governance system.
14 Likes
man get lost. Funds should be in Community pool. We donāt need any new Organization just for controlling or managing it. Any project or devs can put a proposal to ask for some money from the community pool. Get outta here with your bs proposals Alex
3 Likes
Good point. Why is this not a formal, legally binding contract? A DAO vote and ātrust me broā means nothing once the $4m switches hands.
Alex has lost so much goodwill in my eyes with this obvious cash grab. He saw the money and his eyes glazed over as he hurriedly tried to figure out a way for him to get a nice slice of it. Glad that the community is seeing this for exactly what it is.
8 Likes
Go burn all if you want or scammers
Edit : yours steal %10 lunc burns
1 Like