Joint L1 Task Force Q2 Proposal with Amendments

Governance & Proposals
155

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
156

Ok.

The reason why Terra Grants doesn’t show up on the 501c3 list is because it is a DBA - Doing business as/fictitious name.

Why would you do this you ask? Go google it

“You want a more distinctive name. A sole proprietor or partner may also want the name to be more distinctive, or to identify the kind of business. “

“Your company is entering a new line of business not reflected by your current name. Often a “doing business as” name is used when a corporation or LLC wishes to enter a new line of business or to market new products or services that the current business name does not represent. “

“Use a more memorable name. The legal name may be long, hard to spell or pronounce, difficult to remember, or not search engine friendly.”

But is this misrepresenting itself to the public? On the contrary it is the exact opposite.

“What are the benefits of filing a DBA? For starters, it keeps you in compliance with the law.”

“For example, if you want to operate and market your company under a different name than the one you registered your LLC or corporation with you would need a DBA.”

Oh so this is actually WH Research Inc.? Yes a registered 501c3.

But this was setup nearly a decade ago with different focuses with different directors?

Yes. When we registered for the DBA, we also submitted new bylaws and new objectives.

Are you allowed to do that?

Yes “so long as these changes are consistent with 501(c)(3) status and properly disclosed in the organization’s Form 990.”

Did you do that??? Yes.

James was an old director who was removed with the new Bylaws.

What is the mission of the Terra Grants Foundation then?

Here it is, as we always stated from the beginning.

Was this accepted by the government??? You could have just made this up?

Can we put down the pitchforks and remove your false accusations now?

14 Likes
157

Are you ready to return tokens to CP? After all, 0 grants were approved. And now you just want to leave.

2 Likes
158

Thank you for the reply and trying to show transparency but there is still some issues that have heads scratching.

why mislead the community and not mention a fictitious name? why not tell the community your intention? that there has sewn mistrust, and overall shows shady intentions. also can we:

  1. can we see more clarity on the fiat transaction side of things?
  2. have transparency on the funds that were allocated to Kraken?
  3. why did you want to dissolve TGF in the first place if everything you said.

ALSO:

So you already came in with the intent of changing in the future, the mission of TGF on working with L1 LUNC development.

That is funny, how you are now leaving to make an AI chain, so you want to throw in a loophole to fund it using the LUNC community pool.

we have the right to know what exactly the money went too!

5 Likes
159

So there was a company with 2 directors. One left. The other just used the name without having the need to register another one. I guess that’s fine. Less overheard and less paperwork in a way.

1 Like
160

Ed out what is TGFs EIN / Non Profit Tax ID???

1 Like
Terra Grants Foundation Transparency
161

Here are all the Kraken tx’s exported from the platform. Luncburnarmy has them nicely presented in all of his sprint updates, but here is the raw data. In summary, the first tx’s are imports into Kraken. Then a whole bunch of limit swap to USD at 0.0018. Some swaps from Kraken USD to USDC. Then some small test tx’s to test that wallets are receiving, then Jan payments, notional payment, linode costs. Then Feb payments a month later, then swap from USDC to Kraken USD when USDC depegged in protection in case USDC collapsed. Then swap back to USDC, march payments. I have 3 more tx’s that need to come out, 2 AWS bills, and 1 linode bill. Superman took a leave of absence in March, did not receive payment. Total amount going back to the community pool will be something like 30k.

image
image1358×1528 386 KB

image
image1308×1484 383 KB

image
image1342×1456 380 KB

image
image1308×1418 360 KB

image
image1324×1160 287 KB

11 Likes
162

To warn validators and lunc stakers not to take part in it. Before the Cayman Islands lawyers proposal it seemed everything is ok with the TGF setup. Since then new information and concerns came out and it raised my attention. Just read the request for lawyers proposal. It clearly says TGF needs legal protection from authorities. This should be enough for the Community to cut TGF out of LUNC development and close this liability.

5 Likes
163

@ek826 is there any chance you return to L1TF for Q2? To sort this mess out?

Thanks

4 Likes
164

I think you may have made a few jumps here. For one, can you show me where it states clearly in that proposal discussion description that “…It clearly says TGF needs legal protection from authorities.”? I think what the general sense was, which I fully agree with, is that this community needs a legal strategy (however, how to get there from here was open to discussion). It did present one path forward for discussion, however there were concerns with that particular path around governance (or particularly bypassing governance - which I mentioned that I was concerned with too, while also agreeing however that there is a legal strategy needed, and there is a way to deal with the contractual, property, etc. aspects as well that was already created). This was the point of that particular discussion - to discuss.

It just seems you posted some material that easily made some insinuations, and then when there was a discussion, that included some thoughts that could be answers to those aspects, it did not seem like you, and a few others, were really interested (which seems a little suspect to me - particularly since it seems every spend proposal brings a wave of attacks on those who are attempting to help).

Thank you though for sharing why with me, I appreciate that.

4 Likes
165

Thank you Ed for clearing it up makes sense now and plkease dont leave we need you more than ever

4 Likes
166

Thank you for sharing and your willingness to stick around as a volunteer. I understand that errors can be made during incorporations and it happens frequently. We all learn from our mistakes and I hope we can move past this.

167

Thank you for providing this. As we all know transparency goes a long way.

4 Likes
168

Enough to get us to parity is good enough for me

169

Couple of points I wanna make. First of all, @ek826 you painted a bullseye on TGF the moment you centralized LUNC governance through it and made it the de facto “official org” through which most (if not all) of spending and payouts route. So you should’ve expected any discrepancies would be scrutinized to death - as they should. There’s a lot of people’s hard-earned money flowing through this blockchain, and this being crypto means trust isn’t a factor in the equation. It never was, and never should be.

The community will analyze the data you’ve provided, and I thank you for it.

Regardless, I personally think it’s incredibly dishonest to bill and advertise an org as a “non-profit grants foundation” while handling exactly 0 grants and taking money from an already impoverished LUNC CP to fund admin/clerical salaries which contribute absolutely nothing tangible to the chain’s revival or growth. I don’t care how many charts Steve & Marco output in a week, it’s all nonsense compared to skilled software engineers we could’ve had for the same price. What happen to all the projects advertised when the org launched? What happen to the initiatives that were supposed to help the chain grow? Literally nothing came from any of those promises, yet the clerical staff was handsomely rewarded for it nonetheless.

Furthermore, there’s a ton of issues with how you, Marco, and Steve handle interaction with the community. You ignore literally hundreds of questions across multiple threads pertaining to issues tied to TGF (please don’t feed me the spiel it’s separate from the JTF), only to pop in here the moment someone brings the org’s legal standing into questions. It seems your priorities are skewed: the org exists to serve the blockchain and its holders (as it should), not the other way around. I’d suggest you comb through the various TGF/JTF-related threads on Agora with the same zeal you’ve demonstrated here, and answer the community (it’s nice to at least know you at least read all the questions, even if you don’t deign to address them).

Finally, paying a wanted international fugitive (“Superman”) with community money with the foreknowledge of his status – and using a nonprofit org to do so! – means you’ve introduced legal contagion into the LUNC ecosystem simply via association… and with it, endangered this entire blockchain, as well as every holder’s investment. What do you think will happen if the SEC gets wind of this? Or the IRS? This itself is reason enough to terminate TGF, return any outstanding money to the LUNC CP, and nullify all the org’s currently-active proposals, ASAP. Nevermind the $120,000+ you asked to fund the legal liability warchest for the TGF roster (this is an issue which doesn’t impact anyone in the LUNC community besides literally a handful of doxxed US citizens running the org itself, meaning you introduced a problem that requires even more money to solve despite there being no such issue prior to it). If humans were tautologies, the three of your heading TGF would be prime examples.

I won’t even get into the whole issue of phantom “developers” and bloated OPEX budgets listed in the latest L1 prop, it’s so trite and cliche at this point that I’m just wondering what backroom deals y’all secured with validators to move such a parody of a proposal through governance. I suppose time will reveal all - as someone said in one of these threads, it’s the sharpest knife.

All in all, I have to say this whole TGF “experiment” has been a massive disappointment.

I’ll tag all 3 of you in an effort to solicit a response, but I can’t say I’ll be holding my breath.

@ek826 @Marco_Ferreira @LuncBurnArmy

Shalom! :pray:

5 Likes
170

Can we move on from it now??

THF can be a disappointment to you, but is far from illegal as you and your faction tried to paint.

And more, you showed no evidence of misuse of funds, your false accusations and baseless arguments are solely based on presumptions you made while patrolling social media,

You managed to create a cult around you, now try to be constructive to the ecosystem, and not chaotic and destructive as you have been in the past months

Shalom

7 Likes
171

It’s not if but when.

To be precise 1.91 BILLION LUNC has been sent to TGF from Community Spend proposals. If we assume L1 Q1 was OK-ish, thats about 50% of funds that have not produced any deliverables.

I believe Jagmot is part of the TG as well - allnodes associate worth about 10-15% in terms of voting power and playing key role in authorisation of transfers to the TGF from Community pool. This is a possible issue as well.

7 Likes
172

That’s for the IRS to decide when they start combing through the books. :man_shrugging:

You’re wrong, my friend. I had high hopes for the TGF and its mission. I wanted it to be a success, to help us revive and grow LUNC. But watching the community pool being plundered through misuse and lies isn’t something I’ll tolerate. And neither should you, if you’re invested in the long-term health of this blockchain.

Rabbi is always right… it just takes the rest of you 2-3 months to realize it and catch up.

Shalom. :pray:

8 Likes
174

You’re funny. Ever applied for a spot in a circus?!? You would do really well!!!

175

Is it only me or i see a pattern here. All the OG’s getting attacked.

Zaradar attacked, LBA attacked, HCC attacked, TCV attacked now Dr.Kim attacked.

All of that right before the potential parity quarter?

There are some reasonable questions and concerns but overall it seems like a lot of FUD is being thrown at LUNC from all possible directions. I have a feeling if we don’t figure some kind of middle ground and move forward soon, Binance will stop the support and that would be the end of it. (maybe thats the goal of some people here)

Everyone is hoping and waiting for lunc to go to 0.01$- $1 and be a millionaire in the near future and we are arguing daily about $200 discrepancy and $1000 more for dev salary (even tho they are working at a discounted rate)?

4 Likes