I do not know whether you guys are aware about this cause it seems like it’s been on discussion for some time:
Are you guys serious about not having an alternative to L1 Task Force? Or this is some kinda joke?
Cause this is not the only post Notional has done till now over here:
I mean, you guys can’t be for real if you can’t see these two posts in Agora where we are also discussing this proposal 
At best, you are bots then.
Seems you failed the captcha test there, Arubasu?
First topic is from start of February - Compromised validators. It has no conclusive fix as of now and while certainly a potential threat, does not stop this proposal from moving forward. Most of it is Jacobs beef with L1 and Tobias, though.
Your second topic that you posted - out of 11 points Jacob listed, 10 have been fixed.
I guess it has relevance if we want to reminiscence about the past?
This is a technical discussion and not a non-technical one. I do not think you understand the implication of what you are saying, or even understand his points. It’s not possible, as you are not a technical person yourself.
Since I have submitted a technical proposal in Agora and am aware about the technology that we are talking about, I would appreciate it if someone like Z replied to it, who is evidently leading the team currently. I do not need to say it, but he will probably not reply to such conversations.
The issue with downgrading “go” could be manifold and may be a big security risk to the chain, a repeat of what happened last time. If it happens again, I will have to wonder whether these profiles over here in Agora have been intentionally created here to propagate ideas which may be dangerous to the chain and for all investors.
I do not need to explain what issues the current Q1 development has and what is missing from the task list promised to us, since that has already been detailed in comments before me. This is an easy NO but this is more problematic than just a NO, since I feel that the actions of the L1 team is leading towards compromising the security of the chain (and also defaming people in the community as a part-time occupation), and if that is being intentionally done, then all those who are supporting those actions are equally liable towards such liabilities (which have already been highlighted in the first few comments).
Nazis, lol
How is it low quality? What upgrade that they’ve done has been low quality?
Good for you my man… you want to stand on principle you do you! Unfortunately for you, you’re the minority. The rest of us would like to see development continue.
As ever feel free to put a counter agora with your own devs rather than whinge on here 
if it’s any good I’ll vote for it!
If someone hasn’t put forward an Agora proposal for the work that he or she is already doing, it does not mean that you need to fund the L1 Task Force.
I don’t think you realise that the work is already being done WITHOUT money. I don’t know how clearly I need to say this. But if Jacob hasn’t proposed anything yet, it does not mean he NEEDS to. He can do the work without doing that also.
It seems like you guys have become so used to paying for everything that you have forgotten why we are here in the first place. It’s not for the money. Sometimes, we don’t need the money to do the work. It’s unbelievable I know, but it’s happening as you can see below from the terra-core repo:
We can’t cheat ourselves, LUNC is trying get up from knockdown. IMO we cant afford for this L1team, Im sure that we can have cheaper devs, and cheaper does not mean worse. It should work in different way:
LUNC is a project and community know what is its budget. If dev team says that they need X usd for work and we know that its almost our all budget, I dont know any project who would agree on that, every reasonable project would reject dev offer and try to find someone cheaper. Because this REASONABLE!
We also need money to buyback lunc/ustc and burn, for what? If all budget is spent on dev team…
And to be clear, Im not saying that we have bad dev team or something, is just too expensive.
No scammers
More you write, more evident your lack of understanding is.
Jacob stated he is done with TC in February. Has he been doing anything since then?
And if you are a technical person, you do have access to Github - why not fix it?
A big YES from me the dev team is only three months old. Q1 is a big success when you consider the previous quarter. Slowly but surely the L1 team is finding its feet.
Not sure what you’re smoking my friend but if you look at the proposal Jacob made he wanted payment of $100k and had a vision for the chain.
It’s not “being done” as the L1 still has to review his commits and if it makes sense test and merge them.
I remember the chaos Jacob’s IBC code caused when it wasn’t tested properly.
Get a grip please. If you want to get Jacob to work full time on the chain I encourage it, speak to him and see how much notional will charge. Otherwise stop being a child please. It’s embarrassing, literally thinking stuff comes for free 
I don’t know how to turn off your bot mode but I think this behaviour has more to do with your lack of understanding of the technology we are working on.
Since I am not a bot, I am not here to defend Notional or Jacob, and diss the L1 Task Force, but since you asked about this, I shall reply to you (as you do not have the time to click on the link below):
This is not a competition. I think you should not poison people with your opinions (if you are indeed not a cheerleader support bot or something) and stick to the topic of discussion.
As I said, this is not a competition. I do not care about that. He will do that himself if he wants to. I am not his advocate.
Regarding the budget presented for Q2, I have nothing against the budget presented, as the work carried out must be remunerated as long as and whenever the proposed work plan is scrupulously complied with, as has been the case until now.
However, there is an extremely important topic that cannot be forgotten and that I do not see any plans or projects to be discussed/discussed, and that is vital for the continued evolution and development of Lunc Blockchain, namely:
How are we going to substantially increase our Community Pool’s funds in the short term?
Work planning (road map) cannot be carried out quarterly (although I understand that a quarterly planning should be carried out) it is also necessary that there is an annual planning of continuity of work, only then will we be able to present a solid and medium-long term project, either to current investors, whether new investors (small or large) if we do not present a plan for continued work and for the future we will hardly have smart money investors, as they analyze work plans and development of the chain in the medium and long term.
In summary, I believe it is fundamental to discuss and define in this work plan the following:
Solution to substantially increase the Community Pool fund, in order to continue to have resources to pay developers, as well as to allow the creation of incentive funds for developers who intend to build dapps and other tools on our blockchain, thus substantially increasing the usefulness of our Blockchain.
I suggest for example that the Burn Tax be redirected to 50% for the Community Pool or even 100% during Q2 / Q3 and Q4 of 2023.
This budget should not be approved until a way to increase the community pool is defined, because saying that we have a guaranteed Q2 of work and not being able to continue this work in Q3 is not, let’s say, a management attitude and correct in my view .
On the other hand, we have the guarantee of Edward Kim, who will not abandon our Blockchain (and his word for me naturally has a lot of value and credibility) however, and bearing in mind that he will make a lateral move to work on AI sidechain development and features for the Luna Classic blockchain, a commitment of honor must be made that the dapp on which Edward Kim will work will have as its main objective to use the Luna Classic Blockchain as a main chain and that all other Cosmos chains that will benefit from this application/ development are used with resources and/or payment of fees or taxes or other types of resources that benefit the valuation of Luna Classic as a central Chain and starting point for the use of this tool that Ed will develop.
Finally, I mention that the budgets presented, for L1 developers; L2; and even legal advice, do not bother me, as long as a way is effectively guaranteed, starting in Q2, to substantially and continuously increase Community Pool funds, without this issue being properly safeguarded, any and all budgets and projects presented, don’t make any sense, as we run serious risks of everything for now in Q3 if we run out of capital at the level of our community pool.
Social media presence is important. If L1TF wasn’t communicating at all, then you’d complain that you don’t what what are they being paid for.
I think you did not make any progress ! Sins you are official payed group we are constantly downgrade in value ! With Terra Rebels was the other way around !
Your whole post linking Jacobs older topics was here to do what exactly? Wasn’t its whole purpose to cast shade on current L1 teams work and to shat on them.
And besides linking work from others, you haven’t exactly answered nor elaborated on what you are even on about.
I proposed a 75/25% split of the on-chain tax in prop #11394, for a 2.5x funding rate from the tax for a 16% drop in burns. This was a good proposal to fund our chain but the community rejected it and many validators didn’t even vote, and it didn’t even make quorum. Not even voting is a big snub by the validators. Also any tax raises which would increase the funding rate were all voted down not reaching quorum.
This is due to anti-tax sentiment in the community which is pushed by many…
How are we going to fund the chain with this kind of sentiment prevailing? This is a serious issue.
That’s why we had people like DJTrev (he didn’t get paid). The devs are developers, that’s what we pay them to do!. I don’t recall their paid job description be anything other that devs.
No, for that we have LuncBurnArmy as project manager.
Why does the community have to pay this guy $7000/month to “manage” only 3 other developers?
Why does the proposal in the OP specify “junior devs” but doesn’t name them? Who are they?
Why is TGF still getting funding props passed through it despite Ed saying it’s shutting down?
Why is Tobias’s “Coding Dojo” – a fucking wiki!! – now part of the L1 roadmap? How is that L1 work?
Why is L2 development and Ziggy being mentioned in the same space as the Q2 L1 spending prop?
Why the hell are we paying Tobias $13,000/month to shitpost on Twitter and work on Ed’s chain?
Anyway, I’ve put up an alternate spending prop for the L1 Q2: Alternate L1 Task Force Spending Prop for Q2 2023
It cuts down all the pointless grifting and removes worthless non-coders who contribute 0 work to actual issues that need solving. The good devs should get paid, and the bad ones + worthless admins should leave since they contribute nothing of value anyway despite leeching money from the community.
