Legal Representation for the Terra Classic DAO

CZ talk to you about something?

Or did you dream, that he would support this conversation of yours?

2 Likes

This community seems to be hellbent on torching community funds on things that at best are useless or at worst actively harmful. As it has been said, LUNC is a decentralized network not at the behest of any single countryā€™s government. The entire chain is not under the purvey of the US government, and we should not go around granting this level of authority to a single legal entity. This is a waste of time and money just to cover the asses of so called devs who are unable to push an update without bricking the chain in a million different ways.

5 Likes

I had to pinch myself to believe that this is real and that the comments before yours are what I am reading they are. This is sign of true mental illness. I canā€™t help but conclude this.

2 Likes

@BasedTorontonian stop with the racism.

Ed has done great work for LUNC and the community. While I think having legal advice for the chain is a good idea, at this time I have issues with the advised DAO structure, and if this will lead to centralisation of decision making, undermining governance and the community vote. There is additional uncertainty regarding the AI side-chain project and whether the community will be funding this, but that should be addressed in the Q2 funding prop. Let us wait to hear from Ed more regarding these topics, but refrain from improper personal attacks.

7 Likes

I have to agree with what others have said here, notably Arubasu, Jesusislord or Rabbi. I will not repeat what has been more eloquently stated, and will just redirect to their posts, they have valid points, concerns and questions.

I will just add that LUNCā€™s CP is not in a good position to engage in such proposals, as we paid L1TF and that their work will be done quite soon, and that we would then need to fund others initiatives or further important work on the chain.
We simply cannot afford to waste any funds in the CP, so they should be used very cautiously, and I am of the opinion that the SEC is not a tangible threat to LUNC at the moment.

It does indeed feels like the committee proposal all over again.
Itā€™s a NO for me, and almost NO WITH VETO if more details are not provided later on

5 Likes

hello @ek826 I admire your work and vision. Thanks to the L1 team, I can continue my investments in the chain. Binance has previously said that it can provide financial support to the development team if needed. maybe we can negotiate to use at least some of the burns for the expenses we need? thanks for help.

Lots of questions, will try my best to address. Generally speaking, there is a war going on in crypto. As @RabbiJebediah has mentioned, it is primarily a war in the US and LUNC does not fall within the purview of the US justice system. The players in this war on both sides are behemoths, well financed, and already engaged in battle.
LUNC is much closer to this battle than other blockchains as evidenced by recent regulatory actions. If LUNC gets directly targeted, then it will affect the whole community. Yes, the community is decentralized and international and will live on without this, but some members of the community are literally sitting in a minefield and there are experts that have navigated this minefield before.

Now the essence of this proposal in the short term is asking the community to hire these experts to help those sitting in minefields so we can all move forward together as a community. Probably this only directly affects a minority of the LUNC community directly where the war is in their backyard, so I understand why others in the community may not want or care to get involved.

In the long term, @aeuser999 brings up some good ideas on how the relationships might work. It would be great to get these ideas in front of Horizons to see how it can be realized. As for the question of director and representation of the Cayman foundation, I am not asking to represent the foundation nor have any idea on qualifications. As for this being a move towards centralization, I can understand this sentiment. In order for the chain to enter into partnerships or or engage with other legal entities, there must be a legal entity on our side. I think centralization would be at higher risk if TGF were to be that entity as it was created and owned by me. But again, if the community deems that it is not a priority that the chain be able to enter into these engagements in this way, then I understand why this would seem unimportant.

@JESUSisLORD the images on their websites are not anon. If you hover over their picture, the image flips to their real faces. My understanding of the director of the DAO is simply to be a figurehead, not to make any decisions @godoal . The community through chain governance is the one to both appoint the director and it is the role of the director to do what chain governance decides, nothing more and nothing less (from my understanding).

@Kevin_Park i would probably say the post sounds strange because people filled in their own ideas of what my post left out with the idea that my ā€œsideā€ project is somehow misaligned with LUNC. To better address this, Iā€™ve added an addendum to my article to help fill in these details as I see it in the short term. I believe it revolves around the understanding of how interchain accounts works and can be utilized. I think AI is a good utility play for LUNC, ultimately, when it comes time to integrate the chains via ICA, it is up to the community to decide if they want to allow LUNC to be the controller chain. Also, the law firm made lots of edits to the original language.

@tapan_bhatt yes part of the discussion is how to navigate the UST minefield and what that looks like.
for the legal costs, I believe it seems very reasonable to ensure compliance seeing that Sushiswap just asked for $3M after getting subpoenaā€™d.

In summary, we are all part of the lunc world. Theres a war in a part of this world, and this proposal is asking if the countries of the lunc world, short term, want to send the troops or not, and long term setup official camp in the cayman islands.

13 Likes

@ek826 Thank you for clearing that up for me, viewing the website on mobile their real images did not appear, but at your suggestion I tapped the images and their faces were revealed. That is good they are not anonymous.

If the director is a figurehead, can you provide further detail about the committee? How will they be chosen? Are they subject to governance? They control the DAO itself and direct the lawyers?

If more detail about the committee can be provided that would be helpful. Regards.

2 Likes

I 100% will vote yes. A chain is only as good as its developers. So far, Edward Kim, through his actions, has proven his commitment to fixing and developing lunc. Legal counsel is critical when you consider we will soon start a USTC repeg. $20k is peanuts when considering the ramifications of a full-blown legal assault on LUNC. Had Do Kwon had legal counsel from the onset? Iā€™m sure he would not have been arrested. Itā€™s not just about protecting the L1 dev team. It also ensures LUNC doesnā€™t step on any landmines as it evolves. Letā€™s not forget choke point 2.0 and USAā€™s attempts to destroy crypto. Alexey Pertsev, a Tornado Cash developer, is still in prison. The lunc community needs to ensure our L1 team has proper legal counsel as, again, I believe Alexey Pertsev would have been arrested had he had legal advice.

5 Likes

Hey this proposal looks good! Especially in this situation we are now. I have one question. What are the possibilities that the law firm can take responsibility for the multisign wallet? Is it possible that we can take over the Multisignwallet? It would be beneficial if we could take the funds and fill up the community pool and other development on chain

discuss the implications of approving this proposal (and Iā€™m not referring to the cost, which is the only thing that is clear to you) .
I donā€™t have the skills to fully understand all the implications, and neither do you judging by the inconsistency of the comment.
it is clear to me that none of the L1 team directly gains from it. Perhaps indirectly yes, but on the other hand, they are the ones who keep things going, or maybe itā€™s you? since, we both know the answer, the probability that my investment in lunc, like that of others, will be successful, depends on the success of the actions of the L1 team, I am more than happy that a similar proposal is approved and that they have all the support necessary. not counting the benefits deriving from potential partnerships otherwise not even possible as written by ED.

I would like to reiterate that even if I do not have the necessary skills to judge the implications of this proposal, I believe that such a choice would not be made if there was not a real desire for improvement and this denotes seriousness and willingness to progress towards new and ambitious results . Basically, when the news comes out, the price could also benefit from it, a chain recently considered finished hires a law firm for legal advice and assistance. It seems highly improbable to me that this could translate into cheat without repercussions and that, indeed, it will not be seen as a serious, sincere and concrete step towards a path that aims at development even by a wider audience of investors who are not yet lunc holders.

as far as i been #LUNC holder. i alaways have asked for this step. we need legal representation.

2 Likes

Do you really think Do Kwon didnā€™t have a lawyer?)))

1 Like

Of course, he did, no point in discussing though, as it just detracts from the proposal.

The law firm looks sketchy. The address when you Google is a shared workspace in Irvine, CA. No real phone number listed. One of the attorneys listed is licensed via another law firm. I didnt see one of the lawyers listed for a license in California at all. I didnt check them all. Too many questions.

2 Likes

@ek826 with all due respect, thereā€™s no reason for the wider LUNC community to shell out $120k+ to cover US citizens who decided to doxx themselves (most of TGF being the case here). I get that some of you are in the direct line of fire, but canā€™t you just adopt anon/aliases and save everyone the $120k+ on legal consultation? Why do you insist on contributing to LUNC under your real names? Itā€™s such an odd point of contention and hill to make a last stand on. Youā€™re pretty much untouchable by the US government under the cover of anonymity. Itā€™s the same thing I said to Alex months ago - a person who truly believes in LUNC and wants it to do well wonā€™t stop helping the cause just because they canā€™t contribute under their real name!

Look, Iā€™mma be honest with you: the ā€œlegal councilā€ you listed is extremely suspect. They come off as rank amateurs whoā€™ve carved themselves a lucrative little niche in a space that usually has more money than common sense. Nothing they can say or do holds weight, simply because the US/SEC plays by its own rules, and any advice they give you guys will be outdated almost instantly given how quickly crypto as a whole movesā€¦ even moreso in times of turbulence like with the recent TFL+FTX+SEC scandals.

We have a limited amount of money within the LUNC treasury, and every last penny should be saved for core L1 work. We simply canā€™t afford to waste it on legal protection for a handful of US citizens, all of whom arenā€™t even programmers (you yourself couldā€™ve made a case for this had you remained on the L1 team, but with your departure even that thin strand of reasoning has been severed, given that the other 4 developers arenā€™t US citizens and are either anonymous or are covered by the laws of their respective countries).

Iā€™m sorry, but this whole proposal is a wildly asymmetric deal that skews heavily towards a net loss.

In a cost-benefit analysis, this would be discarded by anyone with a functioning brain.

If we had Luna2ā€™s piggy bank then it wouldnā€™t be an issue, but we donā€™t, so it is.

Shalom! :pray:

10 Likes

You know what, Ed? I have a deal for you. I would vote yes if this proposal includes Tobias Andersenā€™s head, figuratively speaking of course. You must have noticed his erratic and foolish behavior; itā€™s clear he is not playing in blockchains favor. Since you want to be the CEO of LUNC, make the best decision and exile Tobias from anything related to Luna Classic.

Not even trolling.

5 Likes

Show me at least one other crypto community where there are such ideas and the opportunity to build a decentralized future?

Thatā€™s why I buy and stake Lunc!

Thanks to the author for the idea, very good suggestion.

3 Likes

Voting NO on this we need to preserve what little funds we have for Q2ā€™s L1JTF as they were already greatly underpaid in Q1

3 Likes

I found the license for the one attorney finally. It was suspended for a short time in 2022 for failure to pay fees. It is active now.

2 Likes