Who else could it be? Can any proposal other than the project’s appear on the white list and pass the ballot now?
People in here are getting proposals whitelisted, so that is just a baseless assumption. I haven’t looked at this proposal in detail yet but anyone who had UST or Luna stuck on Osmosis, Juno etc (myself included) would vote for this.
V1 carried life, and a large number of people were abandoned by V2. Holding the lunc has no say, these greedy validators have no right to control V1
5 Likes
Because mostly people haven’t moved on yet from v1. That’s why he try to terminate v1
1 Like
I agree with opening the IBC, but shouldn’t that decision be up to lunc?Isn’t Terra the new Genesis chain? How is it up to lunc to decide lunc？？？？ This is shameless!!!
1 Like
So how is this making any sense?
Why should V2 people have any say on V1? Let alone vote for important changes on governance? It doesn’t matter if you support the outcome of this vote or not. It sets a very dangerous precedent.
Everybody knows, V2 is not a fork of V1. It is a completely different block chain. You can name the new block chain “LUNA”, “The Real LUNA”, or “The One and Only LUNA”. It wouldn’t change the fact that V2 is a completely new chain. Do Kwon pretty much said to the V1 people: “sorry all your money is lost, but you are on your own now”. And proceed to dedicate all resources on V2. Meanwhile he is not giving up his control of V1. Like what???
Also, proposal # 3564 & 3565 on V1 governance still not whitelisted. Is it that difficult to whitelist 2 proposals posted more than 2 days ago?
Instead of fixing the governance and staking on V1. Have a open and honest dialogue with the community on what exactly can we do / plan to do on restoring NORMAL governance on V1. They attempt to control V1 illegally from V2. These people really are not afraid of any legal consequence. But I don’t blame them. Crypto is obviously still in its wild west stage. You do what helps you sleep at night.
2 Likes
This proposal passed on LUNC Terra Station
I’m a validator on t2. Many of us voted on this as a symbolic gesture that we signal support for LUNC. This isn’t a governance vote according to my understanding. I promise you from everything I have seen there isn’t any conspiracy by T2 validators. This is my experience only. I can’t speak for other validators.
The IBC proposal was voted on in LUNC and passed. Again, the vote for this on T2 was mostly symbolic from my understanding. There are many validators who understand that LUNC currently doesn’t have a good way for the community to vote due to delegations being disabled which is why i think many voted on this proposal.
I believe that LUNC and Luna are separate blockchains and governance for one shouldn’t include votes on the other chain.
2 Likes
Do you think T2 is eligible to vote for T1? Isn’t it a joke that they don’t implement resolutions passed by T1 and implement those passed by T2, what kind of logic is that? It’s a blockchain joke!!!
2 Likes
we havent implemented anything. the ibc vote passed on LUNC before it was on t2
Since it has been passed it should be enforced, now not only is it not enforced, it is voted on T2, I don’t get what this means? What logic? After you have passed the vote on T2, will it be implemented or not? To enforce is a shameless joke, and why did you vote on not enforcing?
So how about vote to enable governance on T1 immediately?
If you have been paying attention, the voting power of Orion.Money on T1 has been increasing. As of right now it is 13.27%.
Assuming there is no new staking, so what is happening? Other validators must be quitting / losing delegations and thus the increase on Orion.Money’s voting power.
So as time goes on, what are we expecting to see? A few validators with overwhelming voting power? Are we not afraid of governance attacks coming from this way?
3 Likes
The last proposal was not able to fix the issue, as Terra pointed out.
Both Terra and Osmosis sides have been working hard to figure out what exactly is needed to re-enable IBC. This new proposal addresses is just a text proposal but it addresses what is needed to start it again.
What I’m trying to say is why is the T1 proposal on T2 and so formally voted on? They have LUNA in their hands and they come to deal with the governance of LUNC? Jokes aside, do I address BTC on the governance of ETH?
Because the vote on t2 for ibc wasnt a governance vote. it was symbolic. and yes thats a problem with orien. i would advise people to redelegate to other validators
When will you symbolize a vote for BTC and call on them to change to the same as you! OK?
Also, please don’t talk nonsense, I am from the East and we don’t have the same problems as you in the East.
I said it before and I will said it again. THEY WILL NOT let anyone else take control over terra 1.0. No chance!! Not under any free will anyway, or unless its somehow beneficial to them.
2 Likes
It is mathematically impossible. This is like when rivers runs dry. Whatever you do can only slow down the process but the fate won’t change, until you allow new holders of LUNC to come in. Old users are either leaving or stop paying attention to what’s happening on the Terra Station. Yet we are being told that keeping T1 staking disabled is for the good of the people.
Im not a validator on t1.
Validators don’t listen to the community.
The right thing to do would be to collect the V1 Lunas in a contract and in return give LUNA tokens with different brands. (a real fork)
Getting help from developers and CEXs (CZ,MXC)
public sale if needed
The failure of LUNC is done on purpose and they try hard to crash it.
If Lunc could return to former glory, what would it mean to LUNA V2?
It would mean that peobable V2 wasn’t needed
LUNC is like the a tool for V2, once the goal has been achieved, then it can be killed
THEY CARE NOTHING FOR LUNC HOLDERS OR THOSE THAT NOW ARE TRADING THE DIP!
THEY CAN ONLY BE SAD TO SEE THE LIQUIDITY AND VOLUME OF LUNC
I stick with Lunc. V2 have not convinced me yet.
2 Likes