Total support!
No body question TR, when they ask for money, and no body ask them to give the money back because they cant delever what they promisa for that money!
So leave the BS and let’s work on this. It’s the best we have and the last obtion for as to se LUNC gowing up and not to ATL.
1 Like
validators should not have over 5% voting power.
0% commission should be banned.
1 Like
I’m in full support of this as it’s needed.
The only question I have is.
Would there still be enough too cover monthly cost if proposal #111111 passes
2 Likes
Thank you for coming back. Your suggestion is a good Christmas present for the community.
No wonder the developers who contributed the most are rewarded appropriately.
There may be community complaints about the details, but let’s put it off after Christmas and enjoy the party for now.
2 Likes
That’s the going rate do your research.
1 Like
LUNC_Budgeting_FY23.pdf (142.2 KB)
Summarized the commercials into an excel. To be updated periodically.
3 Likes
This is pretty good. You should message Prof. Kim and send the excel file as well so that he can use it too.
1 Like
This is a great proposal! I do have one question about the oversight committee. Who would this be? Maybe people from the community?
Great proposal. Yes.
And to all those complaining about the cost of a block-chain developer please do some research. Senior developers (block-chain or not) carry a big price tag. Senior level block-chain developers are niche and frankly there are not that many, especially those experienced with a financial related block-chain project. Finally, these developers are contractors and therefore have to cover their own costs such as insurance, benefits, equipment, taxes, etc. If they were working directly for a company their salary might be X but the cost to company would be X+ the rest. People keep forgetting about the rest that we are not having to pay.
5 Likes
Zaradar has a very bad habit to leave something suddenlly. He did it with with TR twice. He need to work under contract or we can face another debacle money gone as with tr deal. He was also formal or informal leader of tr, so he is also responsable for current fiasco not trying even to resolve the issue with his previouse team. ffs lets be a bit cautious and dont jump immidiatelly on first ball…
2 Likes
The L1 team I guess will be “doxxed” without malice and KYCed by TGF. Additionally, a contract to hold the team accountable, will need to be signed for the deliverables
2 Likes
There are a few key areas that can be addressed to improve the proposal:
-
Transparency: It is important to clearly outline the leadership and structure of the development team, as well as the roles and responsibilities of each member. This will help to ensure that there is accountability and that the community knows who to approach with questions or concerns.
-
Funding: While it is understandable that additional budgets may be needed for infrastructure and partners, it would be beneficial to explore options for funding these costs through TGF or non-profit organizations such as AWS for Nonprofits. This will help to minimize expenses and ensure that the funds are being used efficiently.
-
Communication: It is crucial to maintain open lines of communication with the community and to listen to their concerns and ideas. This will help to build trust and ensure that the development team is meeting the needs and expectations of the community.
-
Focus on core development: While it is important to maintain the existing chain and implement updates, it would be beneficial to also prioritize the development of features that address the core concerns of the community, such as decreasing the LUNC supply. This will help to demonstrate that the development team is actively working to address the needs of the community.
-
Contract and accountability: To ensure that the development team is held accountable for their deliverables, it may be beneficial to consider implementing a contract that outlines their responsibilities and the expectations for their work. This will help to ensure that the team is working efficiently and effectively to meet their goals.
6 Likes
Thanks for the well-written and detailed proposal, Ed! 
I fully support this initiative, but with a couple of caveats:
Drop this entirely. It’s a luxury feature, and has no place in a pure L1 initiative designed to spearhead critical work on the chain. If the L1 group demonstrates extreme competence and manages to deliver on everything you’re promising (which I have no doubt will happen), then you can consider adding miscellaneous features like educational materials some 6+ months down the road. But for the time being you should all be focused on pure programming issues, not side tangents and miscellanea.
PFC should not be on that committee, since he was fine with accepting $5000/month during Alex’s multisig initiative. That shows a lack of character and resolve to do what’s right for the community. Replace him with someone like Samwise from AllNodes (or whoever else you believe shows moral fortitude).
As for DJTrev, if you’re adamant about including influencers/nont-technical people, then at least add @asobs to the team. He’s one of the few YouTube personalities who’s punctual, neutral, on-top of all the news, and has demonstrated a strong moral compass by calling out TR for their recent lack of transparency despite being friendly with many of their members. He’s also a very smart guy and is much more technically grounded than some of the other people in the YouTube LUNC scene. You’d be lucky to have him on-board as a community liaison.
This is unnecessary. It’d be great to pay out stipends to dedicated junior devs if we had the money, but we’re currently short on funds and every penny need to go to the senior team doing the work. The juniors are there to learn and are being paid in knowledge, as well as a community clout (since they’re being elevated to a prestigious level by working with you and Tobias). Again, withold any payment to them for at least 6+ months until they’ve cut their teeth and actually delivered on some of the low-level work, at which point the issue can be re-assessed. Until the, you ought to keep them as temporary/probation associates.
Apart from all that, this is a well thought-out and budgeted proposal, and I commend you for taking the time to assemble and release it. I honestly hope it’ll pass and that we’ll finally get a group dedicated to pure L1 work who won’t be bogged down by unnecessary drama and petty infighting.
If you address the issue I’ve listed then it’s an unequivocal YES from Rabbi! 
Shalom! 
2 Likes
Thank you, Ed, for your promising proposal but I noticed that those 3 coming months will be a building phase to make the chain ready and appeal again to developers to come and build on it. my question is why not within that period we increase the tax and make it a taxation system as follows:-
0.01% community pool
0.02% oracle pools
0.03% permanent burn
total of 0.06% would be a great allocation that serves many purposes in the meantime you and the team will be working on building and rebranding the chain and after the end of those three months, you decided to finish the needed infrastructure and development you and the team reassess the taxation system to decide what sub tax should be eliminated, what should stay, and what should readjust.
I suggest that as long as we are already in a bear market
Let me kindly remind you that one of the main purposes is to REDUCE the supply and REPEGGING USTC
6 Likes
Thanks Mr. Ed, you guys are doing a lot for the lunc community. Let s pay this
A well substantiated funding prop that makes provision for scarcity of current resources. It goes without saying that these individuals are taking on a monumental task at a fair rate. Only suggestion is to incl DemonMoney777 in the Oversight Committee for the simple reason that he embodies integrity, transparency and brings a wealth of knowledge to the equation…
A def YES from me with gratitude to EdK for taking the time and effort to compile this…
Yes, finally we are on track again.
Thank you Ed, Thank you Z.
Great proposal.
I am worried about the money, maybe we can use 100% of the Tax to fund the pool.
What happens if there are not enough money in the pool to pay the salaries?
3 Likes
100% Yes.
I would also suggest that you create a separate proposal to assess the burn tax so we end those ridiculous daily proposals for some time since people trust your judgement. Also if possible i suggest creating a second burn address , one that is excluded from the re minting( Validator burns, voluntary burns, binance burns and so on.) and a second one which handles the on chain tax and seigniorage so we dont discourage and lose our contributors.
Hopefully with more certainty a lot of the FUD’ed investors will return and there will be more new investors attracted which should increase the on chain volume and our funding ability and with that the team can grow knowing that there is income security.
Also you should share a donation address for the newly formed organization (Maybe reach out to HCC, DJ Trev and other trusted influencers like them) , i am pretty sure people would be happy to contribute to you.
2 Likes
I like this idea. But not with PFC they have shot
down too many props and is clearly in favour of minting 50%. On prop 11111.
3 Likes