Indeed. But it seems like the community has begun to react to the condescending behaviour of the L1 team and their absolute disregard for basic dignity and respect to come here and reply to us.
I am in no group and I detest any form of grouping and ganging up.
What should have happened is that these developers should have been individually responsible towards their work for the community. But instead what happened is that they are loyal pets to other developers.
This isn’t a competition. We are trying to fix the chain. So at least I will stand up for what is the right thing to do. I am here to make money as well, but not like how the L1 team is currently making by writing additional tasks in their task list that they haven’t done or won’t do. I am sure it’s there in this proposal as well just that you can’t see the future before it happens.
The worst part is that there is no responsibility for this. They are on a holiday having paid by the Community Pool that we have struggled to refill. While we struggle and fight on one end to fill the pool, on the other end they are adding extra tasks to the task list to siphon money from the pool. It’s not their money so they don’t really care.
Z even has the audacity to write in Twitter IT IS OUR PROBLEM that we haven’t been able to fund them yet and they are waiting for the next payment to begin working again. He has said things like the community is too poor to afford him. I am sure his loyal pets agree with him.
This is what is defined as biting the hand that feeds you.
I have no issue with future financials, howeverm coming from a governance perspective what assurance do we have that this work is being managed done on time and is what the community needs. there is no limit not shortage of funding but ROI has to be considered for every request to ensure its value and is driving towards a real conclusive outcome.
just doing stuff because adds unecessary complexity, confusion and waste. Lets work towards the strategy and keep focusd on that, plan to succeed.
what’s next, get rid of binance support? I’m explaining your roadmap.
1. Gadikan and a bunch of developers come back 2. End binance support. 3. The chain tax should be increased and new applications should not be produced. 4. Let’s reduce the volume 5. the chain has become unlivable and (Game Over)
You have to understand that we are not the ones who had proposed his name for the L1 Task Force in the first place.
I will not get into the controversy of what happened after that (you can find Jacob’s explanation here in Agora if you look, and you will definitely find Z’s explanation on Twitter) but the fact is that Prof. Edward Kim chose this L1 Task Force himself, putting his trust and belief in the individual capabilities of this team.
If you check Rabbi’s alternate team then it has members ONLY from this original L1 Task Force which was chosen, I repeat, by Ed himself.
Whether or not that proposal will pass and whether or not that team will work together is a different question, but the fact that Notional was chosen for this task initially is absolutely correct.
I’m not trying to discredit the gadik as some do. Anyone who wants to discredit Zaradar and L1 power won’t be able to find a developer to work soon.
I disagree with the suggestions and it’s funny to make a list without consulting the developers. Kyc verification should be brought in for what is written in the agora discussion. Having a legal responsibility for posts and comments cleans up the community. I have little faith in the community and I don’t believe you can move forward. Soon I will sell all my tokens and walk away from this community. This is my final comment, my conclusion from the discussions is that we should never go forward with the community, which I believe will never be successful. I wish you good luck
Everything is fine. It’s just that you guys are fighting on the behalf of the L1 Task Force which has completely disappeared. I am not sure where they are but I hope they come back to complete the work which is still pending. Probably they will come back directly in Quarter 3.
Well looks like another two steps forward and ten steps back, better get a new core development team in, this one isn’t up to the all mighty luncfluencers we have on here.
Maybe the luncfluencers should get in there and take over L1 Q2 tasks
Voted ‘Yes’, L1 really is the last hope for this chain… a lot of things are being thrown into this agora which the prop doesn’t cover purely to convince stakeholders to vote away from progressing the chain.
Salary based on performance, great. Why does the team exist when they upgrade but fail to send a positive signal to the price? In the end, coins are invested to earn profits, but is it meaningful to pay for maintenance, repairs, and updates in a situation where you lose money?
I second everything Tristan just said. There is a clear rift between devs and wannabe influencers. And there is a clear hate being thrown at ex-TR devs that chose another path.
What we gonna get from this is a completely chain halt.
There is nothing like that since I AM from the TR server. That’s where I joined first when I got into LUNC.
If you know Don here, I used to have arguments with Don on supporting Z’s work and defending TR. Not just me, Rabbi has also defended TR and all its members.
That was the lesson, and I take my lessons seriously. Once bitten, twice shy.
Fastracking the work to bring the blockchain to parity with other cosmos blockchains is to me a priority so that we can get more utility on the blockchain ASAP.
Quibbling over a few dollars here and there about how much to pay the L1 team, when the amounts being asked for are within industry norms is to me counterproductive. Lets get on with it and vote yes for proposal 11432.
As for proposal 11426, I have simply had enough of the hatred towards others being spread by a very small number individuals who refuse to doxx themselves whilst doing so. Voting no with veto on their proposal is to me the most logical thing to do as to do otherwise would simply reward those persons for spreading hatred and encourage them to continue doing it again and again towards others.
As an L1 dev, my focus is on coding and making sure that Terra Classic is more secure with each upgrade. I would love to answer some questions that I am familiar with.
LuncBurnArmy as project manager: every coders on the team focus on coding and not governance, community. LuncBurnArmy has done great job in keeping the community informed (Ex, Q1 2023 End of Quarter Status. The following summary provides a status… | by LuncBurnArmy | Apr, 2023 | Medium). Without him, other coders wouldn’t be able to show what the team has done in understandable format. We would have to start doing AMA, budget overview, proposal, reply to community, team setup, …
Terra operator: v1.1.0 upgrade lasted for 10 hours, after that, a lot of front - end breakage happens which still last to this day. Terra operator inherits Kubernetes capability to deploy 20 - 30 validators with few commands which can simulate a real network. If v1.1.0 upgrade were tested on large validator set instead of a 4 - nodes localnet, the situation above could have been avoided.
This is a video that I demo 20 - replica network with terra operator. In it, you can see peer failure, consensus failure at less than about 15 online validators:
It is WIP to make terra operator simulating columbus - 5 as close as possible. Mismatch go version, nodes restarting randomly, … will be next step to simulate the chaos of v1.1.0 upgrade.
L1 team needs to cooperate with an L2 team to make sure that L2 infrastructure is ready to take v2.0.0. If we upgrade chain to v2.0.0 now, wallet and station will suddenly stop working due to all the API breakage. With deep understanding of the same situation with v1.1.0 upgrade, we have decided to be extremely cautious. It is a sudden need not covered in Q1 that arised 2 weeks ago.
By the end of the day, I have to thank Terra Classic holders to stand firm and have faith in L1.
I really appreciate the update and I thank you for coming here to provide us with an honest review of the work you have done.
I would appreciate it even more if the rest of the team also came here to provide us with the correct updates on the tasks that they have completed during these last 3 months.
It’s not like you guys are answerable to us. We co-own this chain and you have one of the most prestigious positions on this chain as a developer on it.
Nice to see you stopping by, thanks for all the work you’ve done so far.
Possibly, but the position isn’t worth $7000/month at a time when the chain struggles to scrape together enough funding even for developers. IMHO if Steve wants to contribute, he should defer compensation until LUNC gets back on its feet so that we can use that money to hire more developers. Admin work can be important, community outreach too, and team coordination as well, but right now what we need the most are programmers since there’s so much work to be done on the L1 layer. It’s simply inexcusable to be paying someone $7000/month for 0 coding work - we could’ve hired 2 more junior developers for that money who’d help you and the other devs push through the roadmap at a faster pace.
This sounds like a “luxury” feature, not a core part of the Q1/Q2 roadmaps. I know it’s Tobias’s pet project. I wish he’d stick to L1 work instead of chasing side projects all the time.
Do you know what the ETA for v2.0.0 is? When can we expect it according to the latest info?
I agree with you, but spending proposals for L1 and L2 should not be bundled together.
Have you been in contact with Jared and TFL? What’s their take on the situation?
Fair enough. Please do be careful, though - we can’t afford any more major screwups.
If you have to choose one item in the proposal that makes you vote “no”. What would it be? I think it is best to solve the most pressing need one by one.
We have been working with Jared and TFL in L1 shared slack. They have just recently merged L1 v1.1.0 change to upstream. Not yet v2.0.0.
you can find me on terra classic discord: Vinh#9649. I will often reply slow.
