Summary
This is draft open for ideas.
There are too many proposals and counterproposals at this point on how the $4.16M should be used. These will be pointless if the "money is “tainted”.
Motivation
As we pontificate on these proposals:
The amount is no longe $4.16m but maybe closer to $ 2.00M
The money is not in the hands of the community
We need to pay the DEvs
Proposal
We need to get the money in the hands of the community by paying the legal fee to verify that the money is legitimate, thereby protecting the signatories of any liabilities.
Once the money is “clean”:
Assign Tobias Andersen, Pedro Borges and Edward Kim as signees to the multi-signature wallet
Transfer the money to the wallet
The disbursement of any of this fund can only be done based upon the next agreed upon proposal.
Conclusion
We need to collaborate on proposals that are alike in many ways but differ a little . The end goal is that we want the LUNC community to be BIGGER AND BETTER. TR, validators and the community at large have our own role in the LUNC triangle.
1.22 billion luncs is only $ 216,000.00 . We cant afford to drain it. We need to pay TR for work already done for the past 6 mths,
Yes , we do need their plans and only pay when the task is completed.
@Dannavan_Morrison ~ what exactly has been done (in the past six months) that the community will be paying for that exceeds what our existing pool has available?
Burning and staking (verifying blocks to keep the chain moving) accounts for almost all the activity that has happened in this community to TC since the hyper-inflationary collapse… along with some cosmetic adjustments. Even a redesign of our core (installing the appropriate circuit~breakers) shouldn’t take more than what our pool has available… I think this whole pursuit of the 4.1million$ is a scam.
A stable core will attract third parties to build dapps around it (and those third parties will fund their own dapps) and all that will increase activity and bring all the fund raising and burning we need to achieve our goal of 10 billion max supply and stability.
Installing the appropriate circuit breakers (bare minimum) - to stabilize TC’s core - shouldn’t cost more than what our community pool has available ~ and that pool is growing ~ and that’s what we ‘need’ to fund.
For the 4.1+million of ETH; convert it to Lunc and burn it ALL! Burning that amount will divide the market cap by less = increasing the value of each Lunc and will move us to our 10 billion max supply goal faster.
Burning affects all holders so it’s a win for all. Our community pool is growing and will easily fund core development. Convert the ETH to Lunc and burn it ALL. Then do this (or something like it) to stabilize our core:
Or ~ fade into history… I’m secure in other commodities so I’ll be good no matter what happens here ~ I do want this system to succeed.
Yes, I am not saying nothing is being done ~ I am saying nothing new and groundbreaking is being done to fix TC’s core that’ll prevent another hyper-inflationary event… that reopening is great ~ it’s also nothing groundbreaking and it’s been done before (easy).
What’s been done by our coders (since the collapse) is no different than me providing philosophical contributions, and I do it all for free (I know if people adopt my philosophies my Lunc will pay me by rising in value)… So, let’s be very careful on how much we go handing out on top of how much value is added to TC by the work we all do…
What if those funds are rather used for buying UST? 2.3m$ (or what is the amount now) buys a lot of UST which can be used later when algo is fixed and turned back?
Would you throw 4.1m USD out of the window or would you rather invest the money to generate more income? Either way, nothing can be decided before new signers are chosen since the current keyholders are only willing to hand over the key.
Burning it all (as Lunc) would lower the total supply and result in the market cap being divided into less making each Lunc worth more… so, it not a waste to burn that 4.1million$.
reXxTR statements about “staying away from the $4,16M” raise concerns in Rabbi’s proposal for the allocation of funds for TR. We dont want to donate. Rather we want to pay for work done. reXxTR made it quite clear that he will provide “invoices …”. He seems to be supporting the claim of others like Koch, that no “big work was done”. We just need some transparency. So confused now.
If I may add to that,TR need to act as a cohesive unit! We do not need to know about their internal disagreements. All we want is the development of the blockchain by competent developers. TR operates based on sponsorship/funding. The bottom line is that TR cannot implement any change to the blockchain without governance. Hence I plead with TR to create an in-depth report or guide about the tasks they have accomplished or will undertake so that they can be paid . I think Edward Kim’s grant proposal alluded to this.
TR with 40+ members have delivered so far in 6 mths:
Validators (Governance)
IBC code on Github has been changed from “CLOSE” to “OPEN”
Burn tax
Frankly speaking this is not a huge amount of coding for 40+ people. Hence ,TR in moving forward as “employees” of the LUNC blockchain must establish the roles of these 40+ members. We will be paying them and hence they must be held accountable for building the blockchain expeditiously.
Tobias Andersen seems to be the Lead and Senior Developer of the TR (Raider may be in his team). I have ultimate confidence that he will make certain that the blockchain is rebuilt.
We as the community cannot dictate how the TR function but we definitely must demand of them that they meet certain requirements and standards.
We have moved on from “voluntary” to paid services
Therefore TR:
cannot demand how much they will be paid
will be governed by the LUNC community for the work they are doing for us
cannot negotiate with any external organizations with respect to the LUNC blockchain without the approval of the community.
Hello, Dannavan. That’s right. The proposal as I said does not make any sense for the community. Only for the group interested in raising that proposal. It is a “theater”. The TR thing is just for the purpose of getting more support from the community, as many agree to pay TR for the work done. But they are only pursuing their goals. There are many fallacies. They say one thing and do another. They attack me and then “play nice” because the community, including you, disagreed with that disrespect.
In short. The proposal is a facade to achieve particular objectives of the group. Putting TR as a screen, AND supposedly “paying attention to what the community says”. But V2 is the same with added “legal clauses” to cover themselves and centralize the funds in a bank account that they would manage. It’s crazy. But it’s a big group behind it. That’s why it’s necessary not to fall for these kinds of political tricks.
I hope I have answered your concerns. I leave you more evidence…
