So, when one of you fuk up like steal money or what not, and if somebody from the community takes you to court, you want the community itself to fund your legal battle?
God what are you guys trying to do actually? You guys are bunch of malicious actors. I used to trust @ek826 and @Zaradar but … how are you guys okay with this ?? I can’t even
I do not entirely disagree with the proposal.
A truly decentralized system is a utopian system that does not exist and cannot function for the elementary human nature, which loves to be led and governed. This is a fact.
At this point in the history of our blockchain we must ask ourselves, sincerely, some important questions:
- Can a seemingly decentralized system, as it is today, attract new investors?
- Is it possible, given the current state of the blockchain, to rebuild a functional ecosystem in the absence of a catalyst?
- What are the interests of those who invested in the Terra-Luna after the May collapse? To create a decentralized system or to make profits?
I’m not going to give answers to these questions, but to me it seems quite obvious that 90% of those who are here are interested with money, and not to create an ideal world.
Our system, if you think about it, is not so different from the one related to the world of big companies. There are shareholders and there are those who pursue the interests of the shareholders. I am therefore not opposed to the assumption of a model that in everyday reality works. But for this to happen, some unique conditions are necessary:
- Trust
Trust is possible only with:
- a) transparency;
- b) professionalism;
With regard to transparency, it is crucial that those who will be part of this group share their own detailed CV. We want to know who they are, where do they come from, the things they can do, and why they are worth to be part of this “board of directors”.
With regard to professionalism, it is necessary that the work performed is always made with a view to ensuring an interest for the Community. Also, the members of this council will have to be totally dedicated to this, meaning it cannot be a “second job” they do in their free time.
- Monitoring
With regard to monitoring, it is important to set short-medium-long-term objectives. The Community must be able to assess the results achieved. In addition, it must be possible to remove from the board whoever appaears to be unprofessional, not dedicated, not engaged, and in general whoever pursues interests that are not aligned with those of the Community.
- Create an independent supervisory body
In order for points 1 and 2 to be fulfilled, the Community must appoint an independent, uninvolved individual or entity, who has no interest in this blockchain, in order to evaluate the behavior of the council and bring it back to the Community if necessary. In this way the Community can take all the necessary decisions in a reactive way.
This is only a general outline of how a functional and efficient model could be constituted, ensuring the power and control of the Community over the work of the “board of directors”.
For the moment, since this proposal does not contain any system based on the points listed above, I believe that it should be rejected, with veto.
However, if, as a result of the foregoing considerations, a legal subject with the characteristics suitable to guarantee protection for this Community is established, then its convenience could be assessed.
The ideal world would not be ruled by dictators or people with power and money.
A chain is decentralized by many different nodes storing the past blocks (working together to verify they all match)… so, decentralization is real… As long as we keep storing and verifying and have energy ~ the chain will go on decentralized. That decentralization is made possible by compression and simple and fair coding.
How we get together to verify blocks and make transactions will always be centralized ~ meeting places.
Another key central point is the operating system (OS ~ Terra Station) where the data that goes into the decentralized ‘blocks’ are given value (scarcity).
Decentralization Depends on ‘Movable’ Centralized Points
Here’s my OS design plan:
That plan will prevent the PoS dilemma by identifying supply malfunctions.
Putting time and energy in and relying on the quality of the work to determine your reward is the best motivator… Perhaps those who understand pro-bono do so because they have already had successes in life and are not desperate for pay ~ their motivations are on another level.
Agree. Thanks Vegas.
Lets ustc burn. <3
2 Likes
With added accountability I think this proposal would pass. Some people want control to an extreme extent, but the majority of people would be ok with a reasonable level of accountability.
I’m not discounting what he has done but his posts include hundreds of inappropriate, misogynistic, racist, posts. I realize he thinks it’s funny and clever, it is not.
The problem is not only accountability but the lack of transparency and the centralization of power.
And why create this intricate and bureaucratic governance structure when you can simply transfer these funds to the community pool?
Instead of a lengthy negotiation with Do Kwon to pass the ownership of a multisig wallet to a few selected people, who will now have to be paid for unnecessary jobs, why not just make a single blockchain transaction, where the funds of this multisig wallet go to the community pool??? Why?
3 Likes
My DYOR with you is that you’re a bad actor.
Those found should be in the community pool not in your pocket for doing what? rejecting proposals? Nah.
Your secret talks with a criminal like Do Kwon are concerning, you should be investigated
Validators choosing which proposals pass? Nah mate, not gonna happen
You and your friends including some TR devs (Ed, Zaradar) should stop influencing the voting, that’s plain wrong
In brief, I always trust my gut, and never fails me. I don’t trust these proposals killing the momentum of our coin.
1 Like
I will vote no on this proposal. The funds need to go to the community first which then does with it whatever it does. I will support funding Devs but not in this format. Found money? return it.
1 Like
I’m ok with the proposal, but I see one name on the list that is not doxxed. Only fully doxxed signers please.
Title: Fund Devs With $4M of Off-Chain Community Assets
Nothing in the proposal describes how funds are being allocated to devs…
Call things by their names - this is a governance proposal for windfall $. Get a different proposal to fund developers, as that’s the problem being discussed around all social media and discord communities.
1 Like
you have my support 
1 Like
@413x_45h4w - a few questions for you:
- What vehicle are you thinking about using to share roadmap and plans being publicly (mentioned in section 5)?
- What level of time commitment are you expecting the multisig committee to contribute?
- How is involvement of community guaranteed in section 8 to influence committee membership “re-election”?
- What are your thoughts about putting up the committee membership for a vote to start with?
- Can section 9 be the objective of the steering committee, rather than making it a “if and when” clause?
- How are we thinking about protecting against the legal defense scenario? - e.g. legal insurance is a prudent way to protect against possible legal issues for many companies and individuals.
Stop lying, you’ve been reported to TFL.
Summary
To Centralise or not to Centralise? I’ve been following the Terra Classic revival since May after the crash. The truth is, the revival has been centralised since the Terra Rebels stepped in. However within the Terra Rebels there are problems that are dragging the whole revival down the pan so to speak.
It’s become the Alex vs Vegas show.
So the off chain asset discovery has once again created friction within the community
Centralisation and Decentralisation both pose problems.
So here’s a simple solution for everyone
Proposal
To progress we must resolve our differences.
For the 9 self elected members.
We know
1: Ed Kim - Community trust level high
2: Tobias Andersen - Community trust level high
3: Alex Forshaw - Community trust level low
4: Coach Bruce - Community trust level intermediate only because of Twitter feeds… No doubt a highly intelligent individual (just needs 
comment banning especially if the community will have to pick up legal fees!)
5: PFC - Ian - Respected member of the LUNC community, I staked 27m LUNC at one point in time with him.
6: Setten - Unknown but read his Twitter pitch to the community, seems like a good guy
7: Max B - Highly respected within TR and has made significant positive contributions without any drama
8: Strathcole - Respected member of the community and has made positive contribution to Lunc
9: Jack Zampolin - Respected member of the Cosmos community
So there is absolutely no question about whether these 9 people are capable. They are…
Capability isn’t being questioned here
All 9 of these individuals from what I can see have multiple source of incomes. Time poor… so we need to ask is what are they bringing to the table?
Are we getting Value for Money, or should we look harder for full time non Twitter famous people?
So here’s what we should be asking.
1: How much time commitment are they putting in to the Terra Classic revival
2: Can they give a breakdown of the $5k/month they want to charge the LUNC community (off chain assets are the LUNC community assets)
It’s important for these 9 individuals to be honest with their time commitment
Once they have given a breakdown of the above the LUNC community can then make an informed decision as to whether they are worthy of the $5k/m
The question then is does the funds belong to the Off chain self elected members who have probably been ‘elected’ by Do Kwon to work on the UST(C) repegging solutions as that is where TFL and LFG are stuck in legal battles…
So see this for what it really is - Do Kwon’s attempt to make UST holders whole again with the most cost effective solution. Hiring a team capable of doing this, very biased towards him and his trusted representatives.
It’s not a bad thing… We just need to accept the truth is what it is.
Now the community pool is used for a whole range of things, hence the fear of the $4.16m going into the black hole where Do Kwon won’t be able to control the work being done. It could be used in both Layer 1 and Layer 2 projects and not really do much for his headache…
So now that we understand the motive for the 6 insisting that the money remains off chain.
Let’s strike a compromise
Divide the funds in to 50:50
The self elected 9 manage the 50% funds to bring L1 up to Luna 2.0 blockchain standards and repeg UST(C), become independent of TFL
50% goes in to the community pool for everyone else to access. Which means selling the off chain assets for LUNC.
Now here’s what I would suggest - distribute the 50% portion from the community pool once LUNC price gets to x2 of current price so it becomes the equivalent of $4.16m. So ring fence the LUNC purchased using these funds.
The $60k/year salaries need reviewing - if the 9 self elected members would accept $2.5k/m and agree to burn the $2.5k/m then it might appease the community.
However if they can justify their fees and hold an AMA to pitch to us what value they bring then I’ll accept the $5k per month but this will be $2.5k/m + $2.5k/m performance related bonus from hitting KPIs which the community will set.
I believe we need to move forward rather than watch Alex and Vegas fighting. It gets boring after awhile and the community lose out.
I can’t make 2 grown men see that their ways are wrong.
But I can make this proposal where both parties win. (I don’t mean Alex’s corner or Vegas’s corner)
After all life is about compromising and creating Win Win Wins…
Let’s go and make LUNC fly again!
2 Likes
Hands off from ustc.
“Extract and burn all USTC as it becomes available in the Fuse and Aave lending pools.” - Burn oracle ustc!
Phishing Expedition?
Let’s have a plan before we give coders money! Show the design plan that the money will fund to stabilize the core that balances the supplies of Lunc & USTC… explain the code… assure everyone it’s not a phishing expedition, please…
1 Like