Initiative to Increase Luna Classic Proposal Deposit Amount From 0 to 500,000 $LUNC & from 345,000 to 1,000,000 to initiate Voting Phase

Since there is no discussion for this proposal that was submitted, and given the gravity of the proposal, I am putting in a discussion for it (it is not my proposal). Proposal Description: Initiative to Increase Luna Classic Proposal Deposit Amount From 0 to 500,000 $LUNC & from 345,000 to 1,000,000 to initiate Voting Phase

From Proposal:

This proposal aims to signal to implement a parameter change toward increasing the amount of LUNC needed to submit a governance proposal within Terra Classic governance. We currently have a MASSIVE issue where a large amount of individuals are submitting malicious proposals directing others toward scam websites / fake airdrops for LUNC. The issue being is that it currently only costs 0.01 LUNC to submit a proposal & while this is great for allowing many to submit proposals toward our blockchain it has also more often than not harmed individuals with these fake proposals. I’ve seen this first hand many times with those in my audience being taken advantage of through these fake proposals. We seek a simple fix of making it more expensive to submit a proposal so that we can either punish those making fake proposals or make sure that with this added cost individuals truly believe in what they’re pushing out. 500,000 LUNC at current prices is $125 or 1 LUNA at near previous ATH so this should NOT pose as a significant change to governance. When it comes to 1,000,000 LUNC for voting it should be relatively difficult to get to this tab. Scaling it up is paramount. This is an EMERGENCY measure NECESSARY to protect the countless individuals scammed by these fake proposals. - Classy Crypto / Parameter Change Coded by Edward Kim


I agree.

To: @samwise-Interstellar , @StakeBin , @LunaRewards , @Zero.AuraStake , @cheeze , Blockscape, Allnodes, AutoStake, other validators, and each of you LUNA v1 holders;

I know this proposal has all the right motive for going in, but for all its good intent, in my estimation, it will hurt governance. I would like to ask that you reconsider your votes if you have voted yes.

While the intent of this proposal is to help prevent malicious spam, and while the documentation does state that “To prevent unnecessary proposals or abuse of the system, all governance proposals must obtain [the] minimum deposit…”, what I believe this proposal will do, at least at this point and time so soon after governance has been fully restored, is to put up a financial barrier to proposals at a time when we both fought hard to have it restored on one hand, and is needed on the other hand.

The original full deposit amount was 50 LUNA v1 (at a time when LUNA was much more expensive - that is true), and was raised to 345,000 on 6/8/2022 (when the price of LUNA v1 was 0.00004779), and LUNA v1 since has risen 533% in price (making a proposal cost ~$88). The current proposal will raise that to ~$255, and that price will raise as the price of LUNA v1 raises (especially if it raises suddenly).

While I dislike that people are using proposals to include scam links, these costs are the price of doing business for the scammer - they see it as part of their marketing costs. They will pay the new costs just as easily as they have the old costs, as long as it is still profitable for them. While attempting to make it unprofitable for the scammer, it makes governance more difficult for current LUNA v1 holders (for raising proposals).

As I have thought about this problem, and see no great answer (I definitely did not like the whitelist when it was first introduced rather forced, nor do I like currently, even though it is active in the system, the less than intuitive process for whitelisting - as well as the potential to use whitelisting itself on the basis of viewpoint of the proposal itself). I think the best answer that I have found so far is to only allow the official discussion site link to be included in proposals. Since we want to keep things decentralized, no one knows when that discussion site could change - however, the base url for the officially voted discussion site could reside in a new parameter on chain in the governance module. That parameter would require coding that is true, but it should be doable (within the params.go file: see here [context section only] and here).

At minimum, if this proposal should pass, and the price of LUNA v1 goes up, my hope is that it is temporary, and that if the price should go up for LUNA v1, that a proposal can go in to change the amount so that it does not become even further out of reach (or possibly change the deposit type to uusd [UST] rather than uluna [LUNA v1] - where it would not go over 100% of value).

That said, I really do appreciate the intent to protect people from malicious links.

I hope you each have a great day today :slight_smile:

Its going to be a no from me. this is only going to let the few with a lot of coins speak for the majority.

Rather id support a proposal to allow a report button or something on scam proposals to get them removed and the wallet that posted the proposal blacklisted.

You can make an amount of 10,000 tokens.

I believe this was thought up as a temporary solution.


Completely omitting the point of the proposal being a barrier to entry for scammers and spammers.
Allow me to make a rebuttal.

First allow me to say that I hear and understand your concerns and the well thought out points that you’ve made. But, in rebuttal I would like to address the idea of the barrier to entry also serving to be a barrier against those that want to have a say in governance but don’t necessarily have a stake in the chain. Not to say that they do not stake on chain, but rather that they simply do not have citizenship to the chain.

Considering the current value of $lunc, unlike it’s value pre-depeg it is rather easy, relatively at least, for an individual to obtain the amount of coins that would be needed in order to submit a proposal. Could one not argue that a coin share is what signifies citizenship to the enclosed ecosystem that is the Luna Classic chain? That without obtaining citizenship an individual should not be allowed to infiltrate and then potentially amend the governance and structure of the chain?

Hodling a certain threshold of coins could be said to denote citizenship. I feel it is only right that the chain protects the citizens of its economy not only from scam propositions but also from those that have yet to earn that citizenship.



Hi @Clan ,

Thank you for the benefit of your thoughts. Here are a few thoughts in response:

  • Up until now, the documentation has stated that if you own LUNA v1, you are a part of governance (similarly to owning stock that confers a share of ownership). The degree that one’s ownership in governance is felt depending on the amount of LUNA v1 that the person holds when it comes to voting (since one staked LUNA v1 counts for one vote). Proposals require a deposit (and a full deposit to go live). It appears to me that the original proposal author’s intent was to prevent malicious spam, more than placing barriers to governance (other than to those whose intent is to use proposals for malicious purposes that have nothing to do with Terra v1 governance). However, proposal 6082 would mean that it place a further financial barrier to proposals, and for some who are part of the ecosystem who do care about governance and the future of the chain, that will place an added barrier. At what cost does one become a citizen? If LUNA v1 raises by another 533% as it has in the past few months, it would make it much harder for some, and discourage, legitimate proposals for situations as they arise. Based upon the documentation, if you own LUNA v1, you are a citizen, you have a say in governance to some degree or another. If you stake LUNA v1, you are contributing to the stability of the network, and the documentation states you are able to vote. This proposal, 6082, may end up creating a governing class, who alone can afford to place proposals without significant extra work and networking (especially as LUNA v1’s price grows). It seems to me that proposals should not be further and further out of reach of LUNA v1 owners, but that the onus should be on those who are staked and vote to be diligent in their research, and engaged in governance, to protect the network with their votes.

  • While it is true that having raised the price originally from 50 LUNA v1 to 345,000 LUNA v1 has done, as the documentation stated, prevented abuse of much of the spam proposals that were making their way to the voting section, at this point it is apparent that this particular scammer/scammers are rather lucrative in their scamming abilities. I would venture to say, given that LUNA v2 just implemented the whitelisting feature (again without a vote, and without broader community discussion in Agora) even though it currently costs 512 LUNA v2 (about ~$1,254) to fund a proposal. You have to weigh whether this is the best solution, or if there is a better way that can keep the governance intact without creating a ruling class based upon finances for proposals to even be heard, while also providing a way to prevent malicious spam. I think, and I credit @Joe_Smith for part of the idea, and others have raised it as well, that only allowing links from the base url of the official discussion site gives us the best of both worlds. My only concern was that hard coding url’s does not work if the official site is changed or goes down - but if we put that base url of the official discussion site into a parameter on-chain, as part of the governance module, then this would work in my mind (and enforce it for all proposals whether they happen through Terra Station or through terrad).

I hope that helps out (at least to my thinking so far), and thank you again for your thoughtful comments and giving me the benefit of getting to consider them (I really appreciated getting to think through them).

I hope you have an awesome day today :slight_smile:

I would add the option to vote to remove a proposal from the registry that has no use for the development of the blockchain (spam). Every time someone adds a proposal without any value, users can vote for its elimination.

Each proposal should have a minimum deposit. That thing about it being an option or deposit 0 is not useful. It just gives someone endless opportunities so they can bother all the time by uploading crap

maybe this should be set as a USD value since the value on Luna changes over time so making a proposal one month might be $100 and other month it would be $1,000.

So many 1st of each month at 0:00 UTC we check how many Luna can get for $100 or what ever the minimum vote amount is then the minimum vote amount is set to that.

if it was $100 for a proposal then in Luna it would adjust like this:

1st January Luna price is $0.001 so minimum for a proposal is 100,000 Luna
1st February Luna price is $0.01 so minimum for a proposal is 10,000 Luna
1st March Luna price is $1 so minimum for a proposal is 100 Luna


Just adding a section of a comment from a discussion on a different server (but including it in this discussion since the discussion was about this particular proposal and included an aspect that was an expansion in one area from my previous comments above):

… I think one of the best ways to handle this is to develop functionality that stores the official discussion base url in a parameter on chain, and then do not allow links other than one with that base url into the proposal…

I will say this though - do you think the developers, or other community groups, are more inclined to put in proposals and follow the path of governance (and even err on the side of governance) when the proposals are less expensive, or when they are more expensive? As far as I know to date, every proposal that has been put in that has either represented the work of Terra Rebel’s, or other community groups, or developers or others within Terra Rebels (in their individual capacities), has been paid for by that individual. Continuing down the path of increasing the cost will have a negative aspect when considered in the light that even Terra v2 is also dealing with the same malicious scammers, and the proposals cost about $1,254 there (so obviously, this will not necessarily handle this particular situation where we are dealing with scammers who have found a way to be lucrative enough to pay the costs for their hook / marketing).

It is much better at this point to deal with the links themselves IMHO.

That said though, I do still recognize the proposal has a noble goal (particularly in wanting to protect against scams), but I do not think, at least at this point, it will accomplish that goal, and instead make legitimate governance a [much] harder road (at least for this particular solution given the current circumstances that are bearing out even on the Terra v2 chain [which has a much higher proposal cost and yet is still dealing with the same scammers]).

You could also vote to ban an address for a certain time and that during that time it can’t create proposals.

I agree.

1 Like

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

I agree. What a great proposal. Thanks!