Joint L1 Task Force Q2

Governance & Proposals
1

Summary
During the first quarter of 2023 the Joint L1 Task Force completed several large-scale upgrades to the Luna Classic blockchain. These included v1.0.5 hotfix, v1.1.0, and v2.0.0 (v2.0.0 to be released on March 31st as of this writing). The v2.0.0 upgrade is a major blockchain upgrade containing upgrades to Cosmos SDK v0.45.13 and Tendermint v34.24
Given a successful first quarter, it is proposed that the L1 Task Force receives a Q2 mandate to continue development on the blockchain. In Q2 the L1 Task Force will focus on extensive testing for the v2.0.0 upgrade and building out the testnet, providing technical advice/development support for Ziggy* and deploy v2.1.0, brining the blockchain to parity with other cosmos blockchains. In addition, the L1 Task Force will seek to work with an L2 team* to develop ‘Classic Station’ and provide high-demand features such as on-ramp capability. The main benefit of maintaining an up-to-date forked version of Station includes streamlining the testing and upgrade scheduling process while reducing the burden on other 3rd party organizations.

The L1 Task Force team members for Q2 are intended to remain the same as they were from February to end of March in Q1, with the exception of Edward Kim who will be making a lateral move to work on AI sidechain development and features for the Luna Classic blockchain. The L1 Task Force Q2 development team will consist of Superman, Till, Tobias, Vinh, and will be managed by LuncBurnArmy.

  • Development on ‘Ziggy’, the market module, and any USTC repeg activities is dependent separate governance proposals, as well as other legal and regulatory requirements being met.
  • The L2 team and ‘Classic Station’ is subject to a separate governance proposal.

Q2 Scope of Work

April, 2023

  • Finalize pre-release testing of Core v2.0.0 on testnet and bump to “release”
  • Finalize pre-release testing of Oracle-Feeder v2.0.4 on testnet and bump to “release”
  • Prepare Terra.js v2.0.0 pre-release & ensure peer review
  • Bump Terra.js v2.0.0 to “release” state and push changes upstream to TFL so they can prepare new NPM packages
  • Prepare Terra.proto v2.0.0 pre-release & ensure peer review
  • Bump Terra.proto v2.0.0 to “release” and coordinate NPM packages with TVC
  • Work with TCV to patch GUI assets (Station, extension, mobile) with new Terra.js v2.0.0 NPM package
  • Work with existing validators to expand the testnet to a targeted 30% of the validator set . All existing validators are requested to keep an identical configuration of their production instance available for scheduled “release testing” on the testnet.
  • Schedule v2.0.0 upgrade on mainnet and provide on-call support during scheduled chain-halt.
  • Review and update product backlog for L1 team
  • Renew “community oversight committee” for L1 team, going out to vote for new committee members.

May, 2023

  • Integrate FeeShare module from Juno for release in v2.1.0
  • Finalize CosmWasm upgrade and prepare “migration documentation” for L2 developers.
  • Finalize pre-release testing of Core v2.1.0 on testnet and bump to “release”
  • Schedule v2.1.0 upgrade on mainnet and provide on-call support during scheduled chain-halt.
  • Finalize Terra Operator v0.0.1
  • Overhaul CI (continuous integration) workflows
  • Establish experimental network to host daily release for “vNext” (main branch)-Investigate the addition of Interchain Accounts (ICA part of IBC) module
  • Provide technical advisory services/L1 development for “Project Ziggy”
  • Finalize L1 Dojo - Path of the Journeyman
  • Establish IBC to Kujira

June, 2023

  • Develop a two-year high-level technology roadmap for Terra Classic (Q3 2023 => Q3 2025)
  • Finalize L1 Dojo - Path of the Expert
  • Assess migration path for Tendermint => CometBFT
  • Review on-ramp technologies for Classic Station and develop proof-of-concept
  • Prepare Q3 budget and agora proposals
  • Finalize Q2 work and avoid voting on Q3 funding

The requested budget for Q2 is:

  • 1 full time developer (Tobias) at a rate of $13.48K USD per month
  • 1 part time developer (Till) at a rate of $6.88K USD per month
  • 1 part time developer (Superman) at a rate of $6.88K USD per month
  • 1 part time developer (Vinh) at a rate of $6.88K USD per month
  • 1 part time project manager (LuncBurnArmy) at a rate of $6.88K USD per month
  • 1 part time junior developer at a rate of $1.25k USD per month
  • 1 part time junior developer at a rate of $1.25k USD per month

OPEX Budget

Monthly OPEX budget of $3k, which averages to $1k per developer. This budget amount was ideal for Q1, and we would like to maintain this same OPEX amount moving forward. Note: Any unspent OPEX funds will either be rolled into the following quarter, or returned to the community pool should the L1 Task Force not be renewed.

Discretionary computing costs (linodes, AWS, other)

Microsoft 365 subscription for development team

Total Budget Requested

Budget for L1 development will be requested quarterly, and subject to successful deliveries and community governance. For quarter 2, the budget requested is,

$40.44k = $13.48k (Tobias (Zaradar)) x 3 months
$20.64k = $6.88k (Till (Fragwuerdig)) x 3 months
$20.64k = $6.88k (Superman) x 3 months
$20.64k = $6.88k (Vinh) x 3 months
$20.64k = $6.88k (Project Manager) x 3 months
$7.5k = $1.25k (junior devs) x 2 x 3 months
$9k = $1k OPEX/compute budget per month x 3 senior developers x 3 months

—–

$139.5k Total for quarter 2

1.155 B LUNC - LUNC conversion at 0.000127

Distribution of payments will happen monthly at the end of every calendar month given appropriate milestones have been achieved, approval from the oversight committee, and approval from Terra Grants Foundation signers of the multisig. The multi-sig wallet from the Terra Grants Foundation wallet is controlled by Ed, Marco, and Jagmot (Allnodes). While this is an independent proposition by individuals, we are asking TGF to assist with reports, community engagement, and accountability.

25 Likes
3

Bravo guys , we need this team, they are perfect for us , they fit us like a velvet glove , luv’ this guys

12 Likes
4

This looks good. Making progress!

9 Likes
5

Looks good to me.

10 Likes
6

NO WITH VETO

Reasons are as follows:

The L1 team has demonstrated a laughable lack of professionalism during Q1 by ignoring and downplaying the AllNodes threat to the chain’s security. Or to be more fair, not the entire L1 team but rather Tobias, with a hefty dose of Ed’s usual lack of involvement. Then there was the botched update which required validators to repair (and to be fair Ed helped with that while Tobias was nowhere to be seen). Furthermore we have a wasm “upgrade” coming up which will nuke the entire chain given with how much disregard and rushing it’s being handled, nevermind the overall parity promise that hasn’t been met.

The budget outlined above is simply unacceptable…

Tobias shouldn’t be getting $13k/month given that he does minimal LUNC work and spends the majority of his time either writing for his Dojo, Terra Operator, or waging flame wars on Twitter. He’ll probably spend most of his time working on Ed’s AI chain - he’s said as much. Scale him down to $3k/month, even that is being far too generous.

Frag and Vinh deserve their money, so that part is fine.

Superman (InonMan) is the one running this dog and pony show. He should get Tobias’s cut, given that Tobias does jack shit and Superman is the one doing most of the work and keeping everything together. Not to mention that both Tobias and Ed have publicly acknowledged that he’s a better Cosmos dev than both of them, and he’s a senior one as well. Pay the man what’s he worth!

“Project Manager” $6k/month? Really? For what? There’s like 5 devs on the team, you think anyone deserves $6k/month for logging onto Slack twice a week? Get the hell out of here with this crap!

And who are these “junior devs”? Names, please!

And why are you trying to shove L2 work/development into L1 proposals?

NO WITH VETO

25 Likes
7

No with veto. First, compensate for tokens printed due to your mistakes (
second time).

7 Likes
9

I do not agree. I think the team has proven itself. They continue to develop and build. A big YES to this offer. :slight_smile:

13 Likes
10

Yes from me🚀 For my opinion if we have a right strategy, with logical endings and affordable bags for the time of progress, we can go ahead and develop the chain!

7 Likes
11

We the community have bills we need to pay Ed Kim why do you want me to be so broke I have to forfeit my dog. I actually have many good ideas which can be implemented to save lunc which I could easily find with 1/100th of the budget Ed Kim and co is asking for. Trust the community with the community budget and we can make you richer then you could ever imagine

1 Like
12

Is this correct?

$9k = $1k OPEX/compute budget per month x 3 senior developers x 3 months

13

Hi @LuncBurnArmy, before we talk about tasks required for Q2, can we talk about what has been accomplished off of the list that the L1 JTF originally proposed for Q1? I think it’d be particularly helpful for the community if you were to go down this list I’ve carried over from the originally Joint L1 Task Force post: Joint L1 Task Force and identify what tasks on that list the L1 JTF has specifically completed.

Quarter 1

January, 2023

  • Establish process and product backlog for L1 team.
  • Establish a “community oversight committee” for this L1 team, with trusted third parties. (PFC, DJTrev, StrathCole)
  • Assess the possibility of introducing upgrade handlers to utilize software upgrade governance proposals.
  • Assess the state of our current “version map” and determine how it can be patched to reflect the current state of our system.
  • Continue working on the “genesis import” problem to maintain a “fallback strategy” if “version map” cannot be patched.
  • Adjust ante handler to send 50% of “burn tax” to community pool & 50% to treasury burn wallet.
  • Test/Upgrade “estimate-fee” client logic (LCD) in auth module to ensure “burn tax” is calculated correctly.
  • Test/Upgrade IBC denom whitelist.
  • Propose governance for no canonical github repo.
  • Test, push, and upgrade testnet with version 1.0.5
  • Test, push, and upgrade mainnet with version 1.0.5

February, 2023

  • Investigate PebbleDB/BadgerDb for speed improvements to the backend, discontinue support for goleveldb/rocksdb.
  • Transition to iavl fast node via iavl 0.19.4.
  • Implement upgrade handlers to utilize software upgrade governance proposals.
  • Assess the viability of using cosmovisor for future chain upgrades.
  • Test upgraded chain to Cosmos SDK v0.45.11 with TFL patches to support oracle.
  • Test upgraded chain to Tendermint v0.34.21 with TFL patches to support oracle.
  • Work closely with infrastructure* and L2 wallet providers/partners* on the Classic chain to ensure compatibility with Cosmos 45.11 and Tendermint v0.34.21.
  • Propose governance for Mev-Tendermint.
  • Test, push, and upgrade testnet with version 2.0.4
  • Test, push, and upgrade mainnet with version 2.0.4

March, 2023

  • Investigate updating to canonical version of Tendermint v0.37.
  • Ensure the priority and compatibility with Oracle transactions (tx) compared to other tx’s once we adopt Tendermint v0.37.
  • Secure and deploy Oracle with sha256 to all validators.
  • Fork TFL Interchain wallet, develop potential solutions to the bech32 problem at the wallet level, and present multiple solutions to TFL.* **
  • Impact analysis of upgrade to Cosmwasm v1.0.0 to assess effect on migrating L2 wasm contracts from 0.16.6.
  • Augment the current WASM virtual machine to fit with Cosmwasm v1.0.0.
  • Reach out to Assaf from Secret Network to understand dual VM setup.
  • Conclusions of quarter 1. Community assessment of team activities. Governance vote to continue funding team activities.
13 Likes
14

As the wise CZ once said “We eat our Own Dog Food”. However, this does not seem to be the case with Tobias and Ed.
First of all, the increase in Tooby’s salary is an insult to the community. The lack of communication to community members, the condescension, the insults, the initiatives that no one asked for ( SENATE, m2m, Dojo etc.) indicate a very low quality of work on Tobias’ part. This salary is laughable for such an incompetent dev. I get it he has a fat kid to feed, but it is still unethical.
Second, Edward Kim, respectable professor, who I thought was creating a lot of value for the Chain. But turns out he is just using CP to develop his own AI Chain on our money. This is very disrespectful and shows a lack of belief in LUNC.
I am disappointed as I thought he was eating his own dog food, but turns out actually he is eating dogs by using CP funds.
Overall, we do not need an L1 team who does not have a vision for LUNC but rather looks to expand into other chains. Especialyl at a point when Terra is still in a very broken state.
This is once again an easy No with Veto.

13 Likes
15

I am really having a hard time justifying this budget, but I do agree with Rabbi, that Vihn and Superman really pulled through and find it hard to believe Tobias wants double (and funny enough, I remember him tweeting saying he is not in LUNC for the money), but there is a lot of things that were presented for the Q1 work which still hasn’t been done.

How do we (The community) know the work will be done?
there are also many other devs in LUNC that would work for their bags and not need a legal team.

with the current state of LUNC, I vote No

10 Likes
16

Correct.

2 Likes
18

No with veto. Tobias and Ed have not created acceptable value in Q1. Now they want money for side projects that are not lunc? This is an insult to lunc holders.

11 Likes
19

This is your opinion. :face_vomiting: :man_shrugging:

We are very happy with the team and the progress. :face_vomiting: :troll:

for example?

give us an idea. Let’s discuss. :partying_face: :+1:

21

I will go with YES here…

But! I did expect 2.0.4. to be running already in February (as said in Q1 plan) or at least by end of Q2. If you guys have problems to deliver ask for help. It’s a YES because I understand there can be delays.

1 Like
23

The community should vote NO on this proposal in its current form for the following reasons:

  1. Giving Tobias Andersen a raise is unwarranted - Mr. Andersen’s salary was approved at $12.5k/month in the original Q1 JL1TF proposal, but the current proposal suggests raising it to $13.48k/month. Regardless of where anyone personally stands on the Allnodes controversy, it undeniably hindered Terra Classic’s recovery. Many in the community feel Mr. Andersen’s handling of the controversy, internally and on social media, was inadequate to put it mildly. Even if you support Mr. Andersen’s response to the Allnodes debacle, the fact the JL1TF allowed it occur in the first place should disqualify the leadership from receiving a raise. Furthermore, others have pointed out the GitHub record demonstrates that other developers, notably Superman, are doing most of the actual coding. Mr. Andersen’s Q1 track record is inadequate to support raising his salary. The discussion ought to be whether the community keeps his salary at its Q1 level or reduces it to fund more productive members of the team.

  2. $6.88k/month for “project management” is unnecessary - The JL1TF is only a handful of people, how is a project manager going to add more than $7k/month in value? There were no funds for “project management” in the Q1 proposal, why do we need to incur this cost in Q2? This feels disappointingly familiar to Terra Rebels using community funds to pay Discord moderators.

  3. L2 work should not be included whatsoever - The purpose of having a JL1TF is to keep the scope of work focused. “Mission creep” is dangerous, especially when Terra Classic still has pressing L1 issues to address. While I appreciate the footnote indicating the L2 work will be subject to separate proposals, the fact L2 work is even being discussed at all in this proposal is concerning.

Until this proposal is revised, the vote should be NO.

17 Likes
24

are you happy that the money used for development on LUNC was used for a “coding Dojo” that was not part of their Q1 proposal, and has nothing to do with L1 work?

are you happy with a lot of the work not accomplished from the Q1 proposal?

10 Likes
25

Ed is not requesting money from the AI project. You’ll note that while work on this item is mentioned in this proposal, Ed is not requesting community pool funding for this.

3 Likes