I don’t know to cry or to laugh, so many who still support Vegas and Jacobs teams , I know they are fighting for a slice from the cake , but is to late guys , we have a team a good one, they deserve our trust our respect and we gone stay with them bye bye 
4 Likes
IMO the problem with your proposal #11394, was the fact that you raised two divergent subjects, when you should have focused only on channeling the onchain tax to the community pool and if you wanted to make another proposal to increase the burn tax in a completely different proposal (which from the outset I do not agree with any increase in burn tax I affirm from the outset).
When we want to deal with a specific topic, we have to be objective and deal with a specific topic in each proposal, we cannot take advantage of the same proposal to join other topics as a way of taking advantage of it being voted and accepted. Hence, I understand the reason for the lack of voting or quorum in the proposal made. On the other hand, it is also essential that proposals previously made and already rejected are not systematically put to a new vote when the topic has already been discussed by the community and voted on. that just wastes everyone’s time and keeps us going in circles instead of evolving and progressing.
On the other hand, it is also necessary to maintain an open posture with all the players in the community and not create antibodies (I am speaking from the point of view of a validator) and I remind you that what must be discussed in the blockchain are issues related to the project, leaving aside any other topic, whether related to religion, ethnicities, beliefs, etc. What we want are contributions and competent professional validators who defend, above all, the interest and security of both the Blockchain and the community as a whole.
1 Like
I think it’s cause of inflation. I keep hearing about it in the West. CPI data and stuff. 
I would go further and ask, what happened to the money that we paid TGF to fund L1 development? What is that development that has been funded by TGF, and why can’t this development work be funded from there? Why does this need to be pointed out?
For the last 2 days, I have been hearing from Duncan in the Spaces he has been doing that he and Z are working together on Ziggy. If that is true, then why is Z being paid like a full time dev from this proposal? Which part of the 8 hours in a day is this work being done and where is the plan regarding that? If Ziggy is included in this plan, then where are the details of the implementation for that?
I am so not concerned with that stuff that I didn’t even realise this. We are basically paying a Wiki in this point. I see. And of course, other developers applying for other props are asked for proof of work before being paid out
5 Likes
I think the cost specification is alright. I’m kinda missing a breakdown of the benefits of reaching parity. Did any Dapps specifiy they would crossover to Lunc once parity is reached? I think this insight might help convince those who may oppose this budget request. Or are we just blindly laying the foundation, and hope for dapps to show up after?
1 Like
This is looting. They again want to empty our CP without doing anything for utility. No WITH VETO.
Blockchain is not secure, tokens are still being minting! Who is responsible???
9 Likes
Yeah, the other devs actually have work they can present. Your request for 100k and a % in perpetuity without any traceable work beforehand could be the reason?
i feel like everyone has a huge ego.
let’s calm down and focus on practical stuff.
1- L1 team write a report outlining all what they failed to deliver in the q1 and why
2- not get paid unless they deliver all what they have planned to
3- as someone said up , upgrade and make the chain better , not just maintain
chears
4 Likes
Lol. I was actually talking about Faffy’s Dex. Now I know you’re not a bot. You’re just suspicious of me.
P.S. I never said that I can’t, or I won’t do L1 work. If that’s what you guys want, we can look into that. It is not of my interest to interfere in work that others are doing. You can already see that Z isn’t merging Jacob’s changes. It’s like that generally between development teams. Passing a proposal to merge changes that the L1 team isn’t merging isn’t my sorta gig. That’s a waste of time and efforts for an L1 team who is getting paid to do this. It’s like sweeping the road in front of your house cause you thought why not help the municipal sweeper who was paid to do his job.
2 Likes
Yes. Its true.
Hi, although this seems like a very solid Proposal but what I can taste from previous comments, it looks like not everyone understands the tangibility of the deliverables. Keep in mind that there are a lot of small non-tech investors who are interested in how all the work will add value to the chain. Is it maybe possible to describe this proposal also in lay-man terms? Thanks in advance. Great job BTW.
You are incorrect the only proposal I have put to vote is #11394 which was strictly a parameter change to adjust the tax split from 90/10% to 75/25%, reducing the burns slightly for much more community pool funding. You can read the proposal here Parameter Change: Adjust Tax AnteHandler to 75/25% Split from 90/10%.
2 Likes
I’m actually reading this now. What does this mean exactly when you say “avoid voting”? What exactly is this vote being talked about? You don’t wanna vote on your own proposal, or you don’t wanna put up another prop after this one?
The point right before the one above is this. You already know that you will need to do Q3? If that’s the case, what’s the plan for Q3? Why isn’t the entire plan being presented together? Or you sure that you will require another round of funding without even starting work on this one?
Is there some kinda restriction on extra work that by chance any of the devs do? Why does this entire thing read like a shopping list we need to choose from and you will not do one single thing apart from what has been mentioned here? Aren’t you guys getting a salary? If this is a complete project budget why don’t you give us the budget all together?
Before these two points above you have written that you are charging us to make this plan. But if you don’t know what the plan is, how do you know will need a Q3 funding? How do you even know the complete roadmap for Terra Luna Classic is gonna take 2 years? How did you judge that?
All this seems shady to me unless there is an explanation for what you have written here.
3 Likes
We have discussed this internally at length as a team, and I would personally agree with your assessment that the burntax split should be adjusted to increase community pool funds. We had discussed a 60/40% split, where 60% is burned and 40% is sent to the community pool.
In addition to L1 work, there are other needs for the business of the blockchain that need to be addressed. These include items such as paying for LCD/FCD infrastructure, potential validator incentive programs (i.e. To encourage validators to run a testnet node, allowing us to have a full mirror of production within our testnet environment), maintaining our own version of ‘classic station’, legal consultation to ensure we are meeting regulatory requirements (as required), and any other items that arise that would be of benefit to the investor community.
In addition, I personally feel that it would be helpful if there was a small spend available for a 3rd-party accountant to take all of our reporting on expenditures and put their stamp of approval on it. While we have been as transparent as I feel we can be, I think just having that annual review / posting of statements by a third party would add another element of professionalism.
My hope is that with apps such as TerraCVita’s Terraport, and other dApps arriving on-chain (gaming, etc.), we will see an increase in volume that will assist with the rate at which the community pool is funded.
3 Likes
I agree with your observation, but we cannot just stick to intentions, we have to move quickly towards a stipulation for the sharing of the burning fee for the community pool, and this issue has to be put on the table immediately, as well as, it is essential that the community realizes that the burn rate alone does not represent anything in terms of the evolution of the blockchain, as such it is essential that part of this rate is channeled to the community pool so that we have funds to continue to build and develop the chain, to capture new and better utilities where these will represent a higher volume of burns, as well as to increase modernization and interest that new developers want to build on our blockchain. It is vital that the community realizes once and for all that a blockchain that is not interesting and appealing for new developers to come and build here ends up disappearing sooner or later, and even if burnings continue to exist without any utility it represents zero, it’s the same as entering a shopping center without stores, nobody goes there and nobody wants to invest in it.
I dunno whether I am reading this correctly, or you just mixed up the work of the L1 Task Force with something you haven’t even proposed yet? Are you aware about your current responsibility? Who gave you the responsibility to look after the “business of the blockchain”? Did you pass a proposal to do so? Did the community give you the responsibility of “other needs” by consensus?
TR themselves have come to this forum and have responded saying that they are maintaining the LCD/FCD as of now. No one said anything after that. How did you come up with this? The L1 Task Force asked you to say this? If not, how did you say this without knowledge of the current FCD/LCD?
You wish to create a wallet again exactly like the wallet that we paid TR to make? If you were truly concerned about this chain, you would have tried to get back that money from them, not tried to take more money for making the wallet again. That is not a solution for a problem such as this.
Are you a member of the TGF or the L1 Task Force? Are you completely sure about which team you are currently in? You are talking about legalities and other “items,” while being a scrum master of a development team on which various questions are being raised in this very thread above that you are not addressing.
P.S. You can have your burn tax discussions in a different thread. I don’t know why is this discussion happening here in this thread.
“I’m actually reading this now. What does this mean exactly when you say “avoid voting”? What exactly is this vote being talked about? You don’t wanna vote on your own proposal, or you don’t wanna put up another prop after this one?”
My apologies – this was a typo. This is to indicate that voting would begin on a Q3 proposal.
The point right before the one above is this. You already know that you will need to do Q3? If that’s the case, what’s the plan for Q3? Why isn’t the entire plan being presented together? Or you sure that you will require another round of funding without even starting work on this one?
“Is there some kinda restriction on extra work that by chance any of the devs do? Why does this entire thing read like a shopping list we need to choose from and you will not do one single thing apart from what has been mentioned here? Aren’t you guys getting a salary? If this is a complete project budget why don’t you give us the budget all together?”
There is no restriction on extra work that developers do, however, we need to stay within scope and budget. In Q1 as an example, when we had time in our schedule (able to fit items in without detracting from main in-scope items) and found value-add opportunities, we added those items and completed them (i.e. L1 Development Dojo, Statuspage, Test environment Station wallet, faucet, and finder, etc. etc.).
The reason that the strategic roadmap needs to be developed and not simply released is because it requires community consultation. There will always be standard version upgrades required that will be a part of release management, and those can be predicted and put on a 2-year roadmap. However, the other items – such as how we proceed with USTC require consultation. Ultimately, we would like to have the roadmap be designed and adopted alongside the community.
“Before these two points above you have written that you are charging us to make this plan. But if you don’t know what the plan is, how do you know will need a Q3 funding?”
We know that there will be a need for Q3 funding because there will always be some level of funding required for basic L1 chain maintenance and upgrades. Security patches and software updates never really come to an end. Having said that, once the main upgrades are completed to bring us to technological parity with other Cosmos blockchains, the amount and frequency of upgrades will be less (with the exception of patching security vulnerabilities which is required as they are discovered). However, there may also be other features which require development work that may be desirable for the Luna Classic community (i.e. USTC repeg, AI sidechain, etc).
“How do you even know the complete roadmap for Terra Luna Classic is gonna take 2 years?”
Again, in software, development / maintenance / upgrades never really stop, or else your technology becomes obsolete. As long as the Luna Classic blockchain exists (even 5, 10, 20 years from now), there will be a need for minor and major version upgrades (Cosmos SDK, Tendermint, Cosmwasm, etc. and/or any new technologies to be adopted) and security patches. Now to be clear – I am not stating that in 5-10 years that this current L1 Task Force would need to be doing these upgrades – I am just stating that software upgrades / security patches will still need to be completed as long as the chain exists and is used by the investor community.
3 Likes
See @arunadaybasu. That’s why I’m suspicious of you.
You claim technological background, yet accutely unaware of basic chain maintenance.
You question it as it’s a foreign concept, a lunacy.
2 Likes
We already passed Ziggy prop. This should be a priority.
Nope, not a solution. This goes towards 50/50 split and we are back to that “amazing” proposal.
Why not increasing the burn rate and by doing so the current split should be enough.
I know there will be a lot of debate on this tabu topic (increasing the burning rate) but at least it should be done an objective analysis.
If TGF has released your money till now month on month, I would like to see a review of the work done by you guys from TGF, month on month, based on which the payment was released to the L1 Task Force month on month (signed by either Ed, Marco or Jagmot), knowing fully well that the work to be completed the previous month wasn’t completed, and yet you got paid.
If either of you cannot produce these signed documents with the work completed that was promised to us, then I will definitely support your decision to take legal counsel, since you will probably need some when all of you are sued later.
7 Likes