Joint L1 Task Force Q2 Proposal with Amendments

This topic was automatically opened after 4 hours.

why its not ustc repeg ziggyy ???

These props the same! We just rejected v1! No dapps. No repeg. Just supporting the network in a dy ing state for 100% of the CP. Now they (L1) wants 13.500$ for no name developer. Manager for 2-3 devs. Another $100000. NO with veto for 11459+11462.

Back Q1 tokens! Work not completed.

2 Likes



Bot, bot… Again, again. LuncBotsArmy. :blush:
No one cent more!

4 Likes

:joy::joy: wtf, i vote on every important prop. I joined to show my support for this as view it being super important. Im no bot check my spelling & punctuation :grin:

1 Like

With the caveat that this is not legal advice:

To be fair on TGF and its 501(c)(3) status: First of all non-profit status is a state level issue in the U.S., not a federal one. 501(c)(3) is a federal tax status. I am not sure why they applied for 501(c)(3) status, rather than 501(c)(4) or another 501(a) status (the range of other 501(c) or other non-profit tax exempt status’), that would be between them and their legal counsel, or at least between them and the service that may have helped them file their organizational papers and helped with their 501(c)(3) application form. If they are denied 501(c)(3) status, it really does not mean much - since my guess is there have not been many who have given to them that gave with the intention of receiving a federal tax deduction. When an organization receives gifts (such as a 501(c)(3) would), and does not have investment income, and is classified federally as taxable, it still has no federal tax liabilities (since gift tax is on the side of the giver not the person receiving, except in very specific situations of recapture - and even then the unified tax credit would cover gifts up to a lifetime giving of $12.9M as of 2023 if the IRS did try to recapture gift tax). That said, I can see a case made for either the charitable category, under relief of a distressed situation until that situation is no longer present, or science under the attempt to correct a peculiar unique problem in the field of computer science. It really depends on their Articles of Incorporation, and how it outlined those.

As far as I know the TGF has received 2 known grants (the first established its creation, the second furthered development of Terra v1 and specific developmental problems or aspects for 2023 Q1). As long as the second is within the purpose stated in their Articles of Incorporation, they appear to be appropriate.

As far as I know, the discussion here, which dealt with two separate items, legal representation/advice for community actions via governance (including for developers), and a structure that can provide ability to handle contracts with the outside world (although it looked at a separate organization as one aspect, rather than other aspects, one which already currently exists - however that discussion is still open although with concerns that as currently proposed, it could end up consolidating influence which could be used to bypass governance). Under that discussion, it was suggested that TGF be dissolved, and a different organization by established (not that it be moved - “U.S.-based Terra Grants Foundation will be dissolved as an entity and replaced by the offshore foundation company”).

I am concerned where there are some that no matter the spend proposal - they keep painting them out as scams when they are not (not saying you, but just noticing it in general).

Just thought I would point that out.

1 Like

That is too difficult for the average moonboy to understand.

1 Like

Let’s pull this thread. Terra Grants Foundation advertises itself as a 501c3 non-profit entity:

However, Terra Grants Foundation is not a registered as a 501c3 with the IRS:

So right off the bat TGF is misrepresenting itself to the public. Soliciting donations for a non-existent charity is a big no-no.

But wait, there’s more. TGF is registered in Pennsylvania as a business:

Note at the bottom of the screenshot that “WH Research, Inc.” is listed as an interested entity. In other words, WH Research, Inc. owns TGF (i.e. has a business interest in TGF).

What is WH Research, Inc.? Apparently it’s an entity Ed and a colleague, James Park, set up almost a decade ago which focuses on “data collection and analysis.” It appears to be focused on the healthcare industry:


Why does Ed’s healthcare datafarming corporation own TGF? Who is James Park? Why wasn’t WH Research, Inc.'s interest in TGF disclosed?

The WH Research datafarm connection to TGF casts Ed’s “AI sidechain” in a different light. Was TGF just a front for Ed to funnel money into WH Research?

Care to explain, @ek826?

7 Likes

Will @ek826 return all funds we spent to “TGF”?
Or reputation and lack of legal problems not worth it? Ed?

4 Likes

Oh man :sunglasses: Stunning research. This is like TerraLeaks LIVE.

6 Likes

Interesting… :thinking: :thinking: :thinking:

@LuncBurnArmy
@Marco_Ferreira
@ek826

Y’all mind shedding some light on this? :man_shrugging:

3 Likes

I would like to know where the TGF funds went because apparently they haven’t been spent developing Terra Classic:

5 Likes

a lot of blah blah blah and negative people who do not contribute anything of value that allows the blockchain to advance and grow. We will continue like this forever or until we decide to sell and send them all to hell to see if in the midst of despair and having completely lost everything they stop being so pessimistic and wanting to pay nothing to get everything.

4 Likes

Again, this is not meant as legal advice.

So, a couple of things. First of all, as long as you have contributed toward a 501(c)(3) federal tax exempt purpose, and the organization filed form 1023, then tax exemption is retroactive as (source):

within 27 months after the end of the month in which you were legally formed, and we approve your application, the effective date of your exempt status will be your legal date of formation.

If you don’t file Form 1023 within 27 months, the effective date of your exempt status will be the date you filed Form 1023…

In addition, you have to recognize with the IRS tool you searched with, it specifically states “Expect delays in data updates for the Tax Exempt Organization Search tool. We are still processing paper-filed 990 series received 2021 and later.”

However, that said, the Pennsylvania business search you referred to actually gives the answer. It is filed as a fictitious name, or doing-business-as (DBA) name, so you would search for the 501(c)(3) status under the original organization name “WH Research, Inc.” (WH Research in Pennsylvania), which is clearly a 501(c)(3) and has received a determination letter. There is no legal issue here, particularly where it operated to a substantial degree in accordance with, and meets the purpose of the 501(c)(3). If it takes in income, which does not contribute directly to its 501(c)(3) purpose, then it may be subject to unrelated business income. However, TGF (as a DBA) received grants (gifts), not unrelated business income. There is nothing that seems out of the ordinary here.

I hope that helps a little bit, and that you have a great day today :slight_smile:

2 Likes

One point to clarify with my last post (as an edit): In the U.S. grants can be determined as either gift or income, depending on the nature and circumstances (in most cases, they would be considered as income, however when received by a non-profit, as long as it is within its 501(c)(3) purpose, it would not be taxable). Just wanted to clarify that point as well.

1 Like

Nothing out of the ordinary?

  1. WH Research, Inc.’s existence and interest in TGF were never disclosed.

  2. An unknown person, James Park, has a controlling interest in TGF via WH Research that was also never disclosed.

  3. A proper subsidiary is supposed to be independently managed from the parent company. How can TGF be independently managed when Ed leads both TGF and WH Research?

  4. What “tax exempt purpose” TGF has contributed to? The TGF website states no grants have been approved yet.

3 Likes

Alright…

Sounds like “legal advice”, broheim! :upside_down_face:

I suggest we let the TGF crew run their own defense… unless you’re on the clock for them? :joy:

1 Like

This will be for IRS to determine. Besides are you a part of TGF yourself? If anyone, it’s one of them who should be answering these concerns. At the moment I have not heard anyone addressing this officially. Imo they should be audited as it stands now and LUNC community to stay away.

8 Likes

This is a serious question.
I am sure, in the US you can go to jai1 for this. Can you answer, @ek826??

2 Likes

I only mentioned what I understood, from a legal perspective, although with disclosure that it is not to be taken as legal advice, concerning the 501(c)(3) aspect. I will say that it is not illegal, from my understanding of U.S. law, for a non-profit to operate under a fictitious name (a doing-business-name - DBA). On point 4, an organization only needs to operate according to its purpose, not that it is required to write grants (it can only write them as funds are available to do that). It is not a subsidiary, it is one-and-the-same entity, just allowed to use a different name to represent itself (which again, is not inappropriate). On the other parts, you would have to ask TGF or EK.

You are free to suggest if you would like, but it was part of a discussion, and I answered in good faith, as part of that discussion (which it does not appear has met with your approval).

No, I am not part of the TGF. If you did not mean it for discussion, then why did you post it in this post, at this time? There was an easy way to find out, just as EK in private. But, that is not what you choose to do, you chose to post things as part of a discussion, and I answered, from my own perspective, for what I understand legally (although with the understanding that I am not representing anyone, nor giving legal advice).

Now, this is what I would like people to ask themselves: Why after all this time, and after all EK’s help, is this just being brought up now, brought up in a public discussion, and then there seems to be problems when some attempts to discuss it in public? Hmm…

1 Like