I dont understand, why some developer is deciding in what direction Lunc should go? I believe his role is to develop the chain in a way how community wants but now it looks that developers are making all deciosions regarding chain…
4 Likes
Nothing is decided, it´s a proposal you can just vote no if you don´t agree 
1 Like
As per usual some uneducated people and their comments. It’s a yes from me. Very much needed.
6 Likes
the opinions of no one trying to discredit a well-respected college professor, all of this is sadly gruesome
1 Like
I know that this is only proposal. But Im expecting from developer some code-work, not proposals-work. Many people here when see proposal from ek, they think its great and vote yes even without reading it. It should work in different way…
8 Likes
?? Community will decide the direction when it votes
2 Likes
@ek826
Is it possible for the director to be a “director in name” only (i.e. used for the establishment of the DAO without any DAO management rights) and for the DAO hander (Horizons Law & Consulting Group Retainer) to be given explicit instructions to follow the rulings that come out of governance proposal votes instead?
[Should allow us have a DAO and at the same time retain our decentralised operational status]
1 Like
Do Kwon, the founder of this chain, was arrested a few days ago; we are waiting for official confirmation. The SEC has put Coinbase on notice for allegedly breaking securities laws, which could lead to several delistings of products defined as securities by the SEC.
There is no one clever guy out there that will put his hands on wallets previously created by the old governance, or directly connected to them as of now. Legal advice / consultation is imminent if we want to move forward without thinking twice about everything, eg to acquire the multisig wallet, blacklist any previously created wallets, repeg or even touch USTC, etc.
As for the choice of the firm, I’ve really no opinion but I respect and trust Ed. Some extra information on the structure of the offshore firm and their responsibilities would be great, but I hope that will come in the near future.
3 Likes
2 Likes
Community rejects proposals that raise money for the Community pool.
But then realizes we need money for various proposals to take place.
You all voted against increasing the burn tax to 0.8% and changing the tax antehandler to at least 25% so that we can fill the community pool with part of the burn tax.
Well… nothing comes for free.
Now we will have to let go of Duncan’s Ziggy Plan and reduce the funds for the L1 team if we have to fund this .(Which seems to be a necessity at this point given all the attacks from the SEC)
An issue we would not be having if we had raised the burn rate to 0.8 percent and committed 0.2%(basically what we burn right now every month) of that 0.8% to the community pool.
6 Likes
I actually don’t know enough about everything that’s going on to decide whether the proposal is okay or not, and whether it’s time for it or not. I’m from the EU and when I read and listen to various discussions about crypto topics, I really can’t understand why everything still revolves just around US laws, as crypto is fundamentally global and decentralized in nature. Other countries have laws too. Most blockchains are actually untouchable and that’s where we have power. Power in the sense of ‘Can crypto exist without the US? Can the US exist without crypto?’… I know this is a very complicated topic as it touches on global crypto regulation. Probably crypto will run to countries that are crypto-friendly until the countries that ‘prohibit’ it realize the damage they are doing to themselves.
I understand your proposal mainly as the first protection of individuals operating in the US. As I said before, I don’t know enough about the topic and therefore remain undecided - ABSTAIN.
Ed, I really appreciate your work, I also read your recent article on Medium. I know this is not related to this proposal, but I still wanted to ask you something that came to mind. Currently, our focus is on re-pegging and finding a NEW IDENTITY for Terra Classic. When mentioning AI and Terra Classic, it occurred to me whether it would be possible to introduce AI technology into our stablecoin. This way, we could have the First AI-driven STABLECOIN, which could be very attractive for the recognition and new IDENTITY of TerraClassic?"
5 Likes
such a move seems to suggest seriousness and commitment to a long-term project. if it is approved, it will increase my confidence in investing in lunc.
7 Likes
Hi @ek826 ,
While I have similar concerns regarding legal issues and protection, I do not think the structure you mentioned will retain/maintain the DAO (as a legal structure) in the hands of governance as the owners.
From a legal theory perspective, at least in the U.S., organizations (of people) gain their personhood from the rights of the people within the organization-of-people as they exercise those rights together as a collective group. It is normally those who have the ability to vote that are considered the owners of an organization - and here I use organizational in its broadest sense that still maintains a legal presence. In Terra v1, it is those that stake the native mining coin Luna v1 that have the ability to vote, and therefore to determine the course of the protocol (both by whitepaper [section 3 - last paragraph], documentation [here and here], and by code in the staking system). I agree with some other comments, that the structure, while trying to attempt to protect an ownerless aspect, would in practical terms, as outlined, favor a more centralized structure and concentrate influence (unless the committees are only in place for a specific function such as implementing a specific proposal, only for the duration of the process, the independent attorney themself serves as the director with no authority outside the direction of governance via a proposal that has passed, and governance through proposals approve the creation or dissolution of committees - each committee only functioning to carry out a specific proposal).
I do think that the legal issue is important since “it was the protocol, and not the person” will not work with the courts - they will apply the law to a specific person (at least from what I have read in law and in court opinions - although I am not an attorney, my understanding of law is no where near a complete picture, and this is not legal advice).
Here is what I would propose:
-
That the Terra v1 governance go ahead and work with an attorney to recapture the trust that was formed here as part of this discussion on the sports deal, but was not listed as part of the creation of Terra v2 in proposal 1623 [here or here], nor included in Terra v2’s documentation, but retained in Terra v1’s documentation. This trust currently “holds all of the intellectual property rights to TERRA, LUNA, and UST” (even if we leave the name issue alone for the present time). And to work with governance to vote in new trustees (preferably an independent attorney within a law firm, an independent accountant, and an independent auditor or CPA - all hired as yearly services).
-
The trustees should take no actions on their own, but:
- recommend actions to the community as legally required,
- should work with any proposal author whose proposal has passed governance to implement governance that has a legal aspect(s) to enact,
- and/or to offer legal consultation during proposal discussions.
-
They should publish an audited report yearly, and the financial records should be open for request of those who can show they have staked Luna v1, or to an attorney with legitimate legal business (with any expenses born by the person requesting except where law provides otherwise).
-
The language of the trust document can be adapted in an appropriate jurisdiction, where the jurisdictions trust laws allow for the personhood rights the trust document legally outlines. As it is outlined, it can handle the following (but not necessarily conduct day to day business beyond the stated goals of the proposals that have passed governance):
-
The Terra Community Trust holds all of the intellectual property rights to TERRA, LUNA, and UST. … Through community proposals, each member of the Terra Community Pool may direct the trustees as to the use of the assets held. … The trust and trustees are managed consistently with the governance protocol of the Terra Blockchain and, with a few exceptions (i.e. no [f]raud or illegal or unethical actions), the trustees must manage the assets as directed by the Terra Community Pool through its community proposals. … If directed by the community, the trust has the ability to buy and sell property and enter into contracts, among other rights and privileges.
-
-
-
That all developers be encouraged to include in their proposals the cost, based upon quotations previously obtained, for any legal representation to outline any local and international law legal realities that their proposal may pose for them personally.
- A copy of attorney legal opinions (including citations), although not including any personal information, be requested, but not necessarily required unless governance require it in discussion and the proposal specifies it (or by a separate proposal), to be passed along to governance
-
That all developers be encouraged to include in their grant proposals, the cost, based upon quotations previously obtain, any liability insurance, or customized bespoke insurance, to help provide the developer (or in some cases select others where appropriate) with legal defense on the sole basis of legal implications of their proposal (not including negligence, or abuse).
Anyhow, those are some of my initial thoughts (if helpful).
I hope you are doing well today 
2 Likes
There is a reason businesses and celebrities spend millions just to find the best lawyer, i am very surprised of how many NO comments i see under this tread on a $20k spend proposal for a 1b chain. Let me just give you an example, 1 word can define the outcome of a court hearing. If you classify USTC as a stablecoin and they ban all stablecoins because they are securities (they are obviously not but thats SEC’s current narrative) it dewill be de listed from all the exchanges, if instead of that its called an algoritmic fungible token that is trying to mirror the $ its basically the same thing but legally/regulatory wise its not the same thing. (just an example)
Even Coinbase which is the biggest US exchanges is exploring options to move offshore because even tho they are trying to be 100% compliant with all laws they cant be because there are no laws YET. (if you haven’t you should go read their CEO’s thread on twitter on the timeline of events).
Another example is Kraken, they got fined $30m for offering staking a few weeks back.
But hey, lets burn the $20k instead, that will help much more.
Just my 2cents.
4 Likes
Edward, I would appreciate it if you could clarify whether or not you supported the proposed burn increase or the amendment to the tax antehandler that could have increased the community pool. Without adequate funding, how can we expect to finance future projects effectively including this proposal?
Lastly, I am interested to know if there any further third parties involved in the decision making here. It would be valuable to have an AMA session where the community can ask you questions directly and gain a better understanding of your goals and vision for LUNC.
4 Likes
[quote=“Tynos, post:17, topic:50463, full:true”]
Out of curiosity, why can’t be used those $4 mil sitting on a multisign wallet for those kind of actions including developers salaries?[/quote]
It could, if the community didn’t vote to put those assets into the CP
The funds were not recovered, but a process of finding new signers for the multisig wallet(s) is ongoing since the voting (almost a year now)
2 Likes
Ed is moving towards what he always announced… all leaders lead with their own references.
Ed knows where to finance some projects in the USA.
It’s your personal reference and it’s where you’re seeing the path.
There are two possibilities regarding legislation.
1 - you join them.
2- you become so big that they join you.
- More important than that will always be deciding what we are and what we are going to do.
If we are going to make declared strategic manipulations, in assets and in the market, we need legal framework.
If we don’t want to do overt manipulations on assets and markets and we just want to have the assets circulating and take care of the blockchain, we don’t need to.
There is always someone who works for a good handful of coins.
But it will always depend on our size as an ecosystem.
This year that we spent adrift was a great teaching.
I’d rather defy the legislators, I’d rather see an appreciation for my investment, preferably doing nothing and fast.
How likely is that to happen?
And how many years will it take?
I believed that terra classic was the right ecosystem for this to happen, but the last year has shown me otherwise.
For those who think we can be a new BTC, remember that BTC is the PoW that took 10 years to gain dimension.
Luna was created and managed by TG, Doxxed.
It is PoS and it was created as stablecoin algorithm.
currencies that everyone wants to be stable again.
What strategy will these stable coins be with, have you ever wondered that?
For those who don’t want legislation…
I think the answer will be more in terms of, is it if, we want to continue with ED, Zaradar and company?
It’s not out of malice towards these names, they are trying in their own way, but it is obvious that they don’t want to get involved before the law and they have every right. And it is also normal that they understand that the path of legislation will have a benefit. For what they really want us to be as an ecosystem.
In all cases you must respect the voting majority.
Remember everyone wants to make the ecosystem useful and valuable.
I already have my decision.
20k to listen to a path is about the same as what some members received for silencing people in terra rebels discord.
For that amount, I pay to see and know.
and if other teams do not appear with other proposals for decentralized enhancement, I will follow this team.
OBS: Memecoin-style rate increase proposals, I’m not considering any more…
6 Likes
edward kim replaced by ai
5 Likes
“Horizons will provide legal representation for the Luna Classic DAO, including advice for individual contractors on the chain who may require legal assistance. Horizons will also advise the community and core team about strategies to mitigate regulatory risk that Luna Classic may face in light of the SEC’s recent enforcement action against Terraform Labs and from other relevant U.S. regulatory bodies.”
This statement in itself summarizes the prudent nature of the proposed engagement and of the necessity to follow through with the immediate recommendations if and when financially feasible.
Thank you @ek826 for taking the initiative in consulting with legal counsel and drafting/presenting this prop.
1 Like
As most of you are complete idiots with Stockholm syndrome, keep allowing this type of grifting right under your noses. I hope Binance delists and stops supporting LUNC after all these shenanigans from the so-called L1TaskForce -or should we call it GriftingTaskForce
5 Likes