In Code We Trust?
Remember ~ In Good Code We (should) Trust ~ in this case, an all encompassing code that indefinitely stabilizes the supplies of Lunc & USTC and ultimately the Terra Classic ecosystem… Third parties will be attracted to that stable core and build around it at their own expense…
Before we throw money at planning to make dev plans, let’s talk about the core of TC and throw what’s already in the community pool at developing that stable core.
No with veto. Submit the exact same proposal without yourself on the payroll and then Yes
I agree with the need to have some leadership in place, there are a lot of proposals for the operation of the blockchain and some are contradictory, others are slightly different in nature. It needs to be managed a bit, or limit the emergence of proposals without prior discussion on the forum, this management could manage the proposals. What I don’t know exactly is, will this management also perform developer and other functions? But what I do know for sure, this management needs to run the blockchain as a business and should be treated as such.
I have a proposal that might be acceptable. Sell the ETH stock and split the profit into 2 parts:
buy LUNC for 50% and split the tokens among validators to better distribute the voting power of validators. Management will be tasked with keeping this stock locked up in the network and keeping the voting power of validators as even as possible. The profits from stacking can then be used by management to fund the needs of the blockchain (developers, server funding, etc…). The collection and sale of locked tokens will only be done with the consent of investors (users).
A set management will calculate what the approximate cost will be for the next quarterly period, keep that amount and the rest of the second half will be put on the exchange for grid trading of LUNC. This will ensure an increase in volume, hence a higher number of tokens burned. Management will then be remunerated quarterly based on the profit and loss statement of the trades, up to a maximum of $5,000/month for each member of management. Profits can also be used to purchase LUNC stock, USTC or fund blockchain needs.
The idea is that management should be rewarded based on how successful the network is.
If management performs other functions, such as network development, then they will be paid at the more fixed amount from (1) above, which will provide them with income in the event that the quarterly trading statement is poor.
Commenting specifically on this comment:
The duties for a MultiSig Signer role will include building out a 12-month community-driven roadmap of LUNC dev deliverables
Can you please provide clarity on how the proposed signers would approach building out a roadmap? IMO, roadmap should be replaced with a strategic review and suggested outcomes to be achieved on 12-month objectives. The difference being a roadmap is stuff to build, rather than expected outcomes or goals that should be achieved.
It would be good to see a high-level overview of the tasks the group feel need to take place e.g:
It would also be good to understand the level of capital the group thinks would need to be deployed to support the tasks listed above
It would also be imperative to understand, once tactical and strategic goals are established, that these goals will be put up for governance vote. Note I am not suggesting that deployment of the funds should be put up for vote, but rather the outcomes that the community expects the group to deliver.
Thanks
OK, i’ll agree that, this is a humor 'n sexy show, not a discussion about serious matters, plans, efforts and so on. You are right Mr. @Orbital_Cloud , lets make fun of everything on Twitter. Let’s start another conduct…doing this way, we will be the most fun and centralized / decentralized project in the world. Someone once said we are “meme coin”, now we are fun actors! 
ps: We all here since the beginning, not only you sir.
What needs to be done is limit the power of validators to make it more balanced or change the system to a fairer and more inclusive one.
You have all been greatly deceived by these people. They made it so that you deposited your money in the hope of getting back at least some of what you lost. But in fact, you will lose what you had. Try to undelegate and sell your Lunc and you will see the true value of the Lunc.
If I were you, the whole community, I would initiate legal proceedings against these people.
Edward Kim (edk208), Tobias Andersen (Zaradar), Alex Forshaw (4lex_4sh4w_TR), Maximilian Bryan (maxb_TR), Marius Burkard (StrathCole), and Ian (PFC_Validator), Etienne (Setten), Coach Bruce (Lunc DAO), and Jack Zampolin
Almost all CEX wanted to introduce burning in traiding, but you do not understand why they did not?
At the moment, all your money is taken by whales and traders
We already have a council of advisors - that’s more than enough to direct the community toward success (I hope they direct that way).
Yes, I agree. I also gave a YES on the proposal to limit the voting power of validators. But this is about what to do with the money.
If you’re referring to the maintaining voting power I suggested, then that obligation on managers can be left even if validators are restricted. Either way, I think some of that money should be locked up in the network anyway.
I like rabbi’s proposal better but thx alex.
Perfect , let’s do this !!!
Agree in principle with all points except #3. Why do we need those additional, especially Lunc DAO who is a joker and bends the truth? He is not to be trusted with money
