Governance chaos

This text is not a proposal. It is to initiate a discussion on the current chaos in governance and submission of proposals.
At the moment, we have proposals, counterproposals, proposals on the same issues but with different ways of solving them. It’s high time to make it a real legal order.

First of all, I am wondering how changes will be processed in the case that several different proposals regarding the same subject are voted YES. These are situations in which starting to act in one direction will make it impossible to act in another direction, despite approval by voting. For example we have multiple proposals how to distribute found assets. Now, if all proposals - let call them A, B and C was voted YES, but prop B passed 1 minute later after proposal A, and prop C - 1 day after prop B, which proposal will be valid? The one that got voted first? Or maybe the last one? If we start emptying money bag, we will not be able to fulfill all proposals. This is just an example that may apply in other cases.

Secondly - there is issue of 2 fast changes. It seems to me that some assumption must be taken, that will introduce a period during which we will not be able to make any changes by voting on subject that have recently been decided by this vote. An example is the introduction of a tax of 1.2%, and then more less month later, lowering it to 0.2%. Each change should be balanced, thought out, and we have to wait to see if we can achieve the effects it is supposed to bring.

Third thing - we have to think about democracy and decentralization, how should they look like and what it really means. Some ppl confuse democracy with decentralization. For me the biggest issue are OP Validators. Their voting power is so significant, that sometimes with “one vote” they can decide about future of proposal. Thanks to this, groups can be created whose goal is not the good of the community, but their private interest. They will try to influence the course of the vote through their great involvement.
Another thing is passiveness of some Validators, they simply do not vote or always abstain. I wish Validators take no more than 1% of voting power and were additionally required to vote (like in some countries - Australia, Belgium, Itally) or else they would lose their ability to be a validator for a period of time. Validators are crucial for our ecosystem, but they don’t have to have such power, and all of them should be active in each voting (just like us if we do care about future).

I Invite You to further discussion.


Dear Premier, I fully agree with your thoughts and comments, The biggest problem of the community right now is that the same issues are discussed over and over in different ways and the person who will manage the issues is taken away.
Topics should be opened weekly and monthly and the transactions on them should be shortened. The only thing all Terra investors expect right now is at least half of the approximately 6 narratives appearing in Marketcap, it is very clear that most of these 6 trillion units are in the hands of Binance, Terra foundation and exchanges,

5k U$D per Proposal?

Maybe we raise the cost to get proposals into the voting process in the station and unless the proposal passes, the party making the proposition doesn’t get the money back (it goes into the community pool). If the proposal passes, the party gets back the funds used to get the proposal into the station to be voted on official.

Individuals who lack the funds (but have good ideas) would have to raise funds to get their proposals into the official voting stage in the station.

This would stop most clowns from turning the process into a circus.


:writing_hand: :sunny: A nice debate that needs to be given…

Thanks for putting it into words. :pray:


Thank you for opening… I’ve been thinking for days now about how to exclude or limit daddying…
At the moment we are largely manipulated and in truth the important and crucial issues that need our debate and solutions to the hottest problems have no chance of getting through without the support of the popular figures in this circus…
As I have largely read the who’s who, I support all of what I believe are the key and most important proposals. We really do have great people, a wonderful community with a positive attitude. They just need signposts, to not wander too long…
We need to realise one fact. The whole world is watching us and this is an experiment on a global scale.
Once again, we are faced with a huge opportunity to have what our grandfathers, fathers and ultimately we are fighting for today. But we must go together, guided by our universal compass - the heart.
Yes - to curb these populists, there is only one way - to unite in the name of the highest values and only to appeal to them, that value being love, respect and freedom for everyone. This test will not be passed by the aforementioned dads…

This is what happens when the tokenomics makes too plentiful the opportunity to submit a proposal.

That was the state of submitting proposals before the crash, and something that got compounded after the crash.

People don’t need to think twice if they want to put in a trash proposal. If lunc was more scarce, we’d have less of a problem with people not wanting to waste tokens on trash proposals to vote on.

Granted making lunc more scarce is the main mission objective right now.

A mechanism needs to be put in place that no proposal can go for deposit or vote unless it has been posted here first and has been either viewed or liked or commented on by a certain number of people (I am not sure what that metric should be TBH). Right now we have scam proposals going up and proposals that seek to overturn proposals that literally just passed. This type of chaos will destroy this coin if it keeps going.


@awhitehouse - Agreed, it should not be possible to make a proposal without discussion, quorum as usual at least 40%. Otherwise there is massive chaos and someone who wants to destroy us has the tools in hand from ourselves. All it takes is $150-200 and a well-prepared prop. :handshake:

I will be presenting a plan very soon for discussion. The plan should generally address a lot of concerns expressed in this topic. Hopefully, my submission will be insightful to the entire community. It should be submitted in 24-48 hours.

1 Like

Lik it or not, there’s no leadership here, therefore there is chaos. Unless we find a good leader, this is what we are all gonna get for the next few months and years. I understand many of you don’t like this, but this is a fact.


I wish Edward Kim, Alex Forshaw, Tobias Anderson and Vegas would all come together to create a board of directors.

@WillLaroo That concept has been floated. However, people freakout and want complete “democracy” with everything being voted on by everyone regardless of how inefficient that concept is in real life.


It is obvious that if we use collective intelligence we’ll have everything. If we a board of directors, i.e., corporations, we will be exposed to instability. Then one that one unbalanced person will lead us into the abyss, see Stalin/Hitler. Those were directors :wink: Loved by the masses and the mass media… You are taught submission, I’m NOT a cow… I don’t need a shepherd !