I am against allocating community resources to fund legal representation of a private entity which only offers potential protection to a handful of American citizens. The costs outweigh the benefits to the community as a whole.
7 Likes
First of all, hi Ed!
It seemed from your medium article that you were removing yourself from the TGF and wouldânt work with the L1 in an âofficialâ capacity so Iâm gonna start this off with asking if you could perhaps clear things up a bit with your presence in the TGF and why this was submitted by you and not by Marco since now heâs running TGF??
I know I and many other lunc investors got into lunc because it was a decentralized chain where I felt like we had a real impact in the way the chain was progressing.
The way i see this proposal is a call for more centralization on a decentralized chain. There has already been past talk coming from the L1JTF about forming a senate kind of structure for lunc which would essentially control the chain and itâs governance and them making a DAO and having a committee is just another way of accomplishing that.
Why are we always coming back to this?
The L1 was paid for by the community to code not to mess with luncâs governance or to start a business type of venture on the back of luncâs community pool!
We have limited funds in the CP as of now.
This legal representation isnt even set up for the lunc community but to the DAO and takes itâs instructions from the DAO as i see in your proposal. All run through a committee!
Ed recused himself from the TGF and the L1 so he could focus on his ai-chain so for whom are we paying legal representation to? As we know the devs working on lunc consist of Tobias, Inon-man
(who they call Superman), Vihn, Frag as of now and all of them are not in the USA or US citizens.
The only benefit i see from this proposal would be for the US citizens which is essentially Marco who is not a dev and potentially luncburnarmy who is also not a dev but a manager for the 4 people on the L1.
So the question then is why should the community allocate 120k and most likely more down the road for legal representation to a team that consists of non-devs? As shown in the picture even
Ed agrees that the SEC could potentially only affect a minority of lunc who reside in the US and only if they are doxxed.
Are we really going to spend 120k and potentially more on paper pushers of the TGF just because Marco fears litigation coming his way. He can always adopt a new nick and become anonymous and
continue to work that way and the money used more wisely.
As for LUNC the SEC is a total non-issue, Lunc is neither american nor does it fall under the USA court system.
I have further questions that this proposal hasnât even begun to address and we as part of the lunc community have a right to know to make a informed decision. You have put out this proposal with
no further information about this firm you favor as is your duty as the proposer here.There are also other questions i have about this firm you guys are favoring which to me seems to be quiet shady.
Nor a breakdown of the budget as to what exactly would the 100k be paying
Im also questioning how would we know that the paid time from the law firm was used only on lunc matters and not for example help setting up Edâs new chain and token? Or are we really reverting back to the âjust trust me broâ that worked so well before when 150k was paid to TR WITHOUT a budget breakdown!!
These are things that should have been specified in the proposal, honestly i find this proposal too vague and badly informed to even consider to vote yes notwithstanding all the issues i wrote above.
So for me itâs going to be a NO WITH VETO
The community should not give up itâs independice to some DAO in the cayman islands or to pay paper pushers law advice THATâS NOT EVEN WRITTEN IN THE US LAW YET!!
14 Likes
Preventing trouble is priceless.
All smart businesses/entities the world over know this all too well.
2 Likes
Itâs called a difference of opinion, not everyone has to agree with you and frankly itâs sad you cant accept that.
Also paying TGFâs legal advice doesnât help LUNC in any way seeing as LUNC isnt even in American jurisdiction.
6 Likes
Being taken on because there is no special promise to you shows that you are one of them. Harassment and accusatory comments rather than disagreements are so boring (which I usually read). If you wish, you can sell all your investments and leave us alone (harassment and accusatory troll army). Of course, if you have an investment, I did not know. If youâre not one of them, you donât need to be offended. When I read all the comments and so-called criticisms from head to toe, it becomes clear what I mean. 
some examples
1 Like
yes, because telling investors to sell and leave is such a good idea? gee what a good idea,because every other business that told their customers âIf you donât like it, donât buyâ turned out successful (that was sarcasm if you didnât get that btw).
you have to tell yourself this, if there are multiple people that have the same concerns, especially about Tobias, you have to really ask yourself, maybe there is something with Tobiasâs actions? those members you quoted didnât just get together and make up those claims up.
donât just blindly follow, ask questions.
5 Likes
Iâm not sure i understand your first sentence, as for my post i took a day since i read this proposal to think about it and to try to formulate my thoughts on this matter.
As a lunc investor my only interest is for the betterment of the chain and we all may not agree on the same things all the time. We are a community consisting of different people in different countries so your comment calling ALL accounts fake and trolls that donât agree with you isnât really probable. 
I will leave it at that as I do not want to derail this comment section unless further provoked.
5 Likes
Do you think there is an opinion in the sample comments I shared or do they just want to attack and do harm? I say donât get carried away. I respect ideas, comments and evaluations are important.
stay true to the point, this is not the place to scribble. We are not in a field where you can say that I can attack or attack is my choice. We strive for the future of the chain and the project.
1 Like
I donât understand what you are trying to say here, as I cannot make sense from what you wrote.
I am going to just assume what you meant, and will reply with that assumptions.
I am pointing out that you initially attacked by calling those you do not agree with âtrollsâ, different opinions is what paves way, you want to strive for the future and the chain, then you must think critically and understand why the problems are problems and how to approach it.
2 Likes
This will be my last comment on this as i think this is an important proposal and i really do not wish to derail it. To answer you question from your sample size of 3 people in a comment
section of over 50 users that commented here i think that there may be some overlapping views of people that saw some patterns and came to the same conclusions. They are those peopleâs
views and concerns. You wont find people agreeing 100% to the same things everywhere imo
4 Likes
This is an additional point that I have talked about on Twitter but not here. But this is a major issue with this proposal.
If the proposal comes from TGF and if Prof. Edward Kim is not a part of TGF then this proposal doesnât have an author yet. I mean, it either has to be Marco or Jagmot proposing this. At least these are the other two members I am aware of in TGF.
Coming to TGF, we of course have questions regarding that. For example,
-
What was the investment given to TGF used for? Where is that money currently?
-
Why is TGF being dissolved to create a new DAO with the community money, when the money that had been given to TGF to invest in the chain hasnât been used yet? What has it been used for?
-
If Marco wanted to be involved in Terra Luna Classic officially why was TGF only registered in Prof. Edward Kimâs name?
-
If this is Prof. Edward Kimâs plan then why wasnât he present in DJ Trevâs live the other day? And if Marco was representing TGF in that live, then why is he not mentioned here on Agora? And where is he currently?
-
Why wasnât the Oversight Committee, whoâs basic function is to represent the community, not involved in this conversation?
Why is everything an afterthought? Why is everything not planned? Why is it not written down?
Also, tbh I did not feel after watching DJ Trevâs live, that Marco is capable of leading Terra Luna Classic. Iâll be absolutely honest. I am not saying that he needs to be Barack Obama, but if he hasnât asked the law firm the questions that we are asking here, then heâs not capable of doing this anyway.
Everything canât be an afterthought. We should choose our words carefully, and tread even more carefully otherwise there will be questions raised, which will not have answers.
6 Likes
Do you think Do Kwon would have escaped arrest with offshore? Naive Chukchi guy
3 Likes
So you want TFG to be enduring and risking the consequences when they are saying they need protection?
Donât you want to give legal advice to those who are building and then want to protect them from the consequences of the path they took with no idea what that would legally entail for their lives?
I was also enjoying all of this, until a year passed and I saw that nothing new happened, because those who build donât risk choosing an identity for the ecosystem.
And whoever defends an identity does not have the capacity to build.
Those who manage do not speak out or promote the ecosystem publicly.
Who could invest, does not invest in an ecosystem with a debt claimed in court.
And our only asset, which are people, are choosing other projects.
I also donât want to spend community funds on dubious legalization like this one, (because the law is also dubious).
But I also donât want to take another year adrift.
Shouldnât we aim our strengths at making assets healthy first?
And spend community funds on approved projects.
It was approved that validators should maintain a minimum commission of 5% to maintain competitive factors.
Because this is not done yet.
Because L1 is building its own project, not the communityâs project.
You are putting everything in L1âs hands and soon it will be another two years.
L1 work is important, YES. But notice that they are not a team to enhance the ecosystem, they are a team to maintain and optimize the blockchain.
Notice what the idea now for valuation presented by the leader L1, is to make an AI that we donât even know if it will be in classc land.
Donât keep putting all your lives in the hands of the L1 team.
If we want a decentralized ecosystem L1 has to disappear as leaders.
And we just need to hire work in Lunc currency.
If we want to have the L1 team, zaradar already said that he only works in $ and doxxed. Ed the same, and thereâs nothing decentralized about it.
In you should explain what is your valuation projection, concrete with this expense.
Do you have something in mind for this to be presenting this path.
It would be easier to know if we want this path.
If itâs just for Doxx problems⌠Hide your face and change your name.
But if you want to make a manipulated movement for appreciation that needs contracts.
PRESENT THAT MOVEMENT.
Please.
3 Likes
@Leandro_Salvador I support the L1 Team getting legal advice in general. However, I donât support the plan and legal advice given to set up the DAO. Just because a lawyer gives advice, it doesnât mean we as the community have to follow it. If you ask a different lawyer you may get a different opinion and different advice. The advice of Horizon Law has deep ramifications to our community and centralises power to the director and committee of the DAO, and I do not agree with this.
The L1TF and TGF have operated thus far without a problem. This doesnât mean there will not be a problem in the future. We do not know the specific legal advice behind why a DAO in Cayman Islands was suggested, and what this offers over other alternatives, as the legal advice received has not been explained sufficiently yet to the community.
I am thinking the reason legal advice is sought now is because the L1TF wants to tinker with USTC re-peg. This can be surmised by optimistic statements about preliminary advice received from Horizon Law that there is a pathway for it. We should have some healthy skepticism of this as a community, as the SEC has given very little guidance in general, aside from clear opposition to the last attempted algorithmic stablecoin attempt in their f-raud claim against Do Kwon and TFL. I think it is highly risky and inviting trouble for LUNC in attempting an algorithmic re-peg. I donât think the DAO would stop anything if the SEC wanted to come after our developers, or at least our US based ones.
So I have problems with not enough information to make an informed decision, as the exact legal advice and justification behind it has not been provided to the community. In this proposal, the DAO is the client of the lawyers, not the community, so we could expect similar limited information given to the community for important decisions.
The L1TF can have legal advice without the DAO plan, which I do not approve of due to the reasons I already stated. The community has to approve such a drastic change for LUNC, and we have the power to say yes or no. If this plan is rejected it doesnât mean suddenly our devs will get arrested and everything will fall apart. We need to be sensible and consider this carefully, the ramifications, and the alternatives.
As for me I donât support messing with USTC re-peg, but my Vision Plan I already have proposed here, to raise the tax and push for off-chain burns. This is not legally risky for our chain. Thatâs what I support, but the community as a whole will decide our direction.
5 Likes
I agree in partâŚ
The truth is that it will not be easy to reach a consensus, as long as we remember that our ecosystem is a stable algorithm and that this algorithm is the valuer of the lunc coin.
That pays for chain work, validators, investors, and new projects.
If we canât stabilize ustc, weâll have to invent another ecosystem.
Thatâs why I think proposals should explain the rationale for valuing the ecosystem.
If Ed, you want to make contracts that say what contracts are going to be made and how that contributes to value our identity, which one?
Stable algorithm, or another?
So I can decide what weâre wanting to do. and how it affects my investment, (Time and money)
2 Likes
This is not the case. Our system used to be based on UST an algorithmic stablecoin linked to LUNA.
The peg failed and LUNA went from $110 to near $0 while minting 6.9 trillion coins. LUNA became LUNC, and the creators went off to make their own chain LUNA V2. The algorithmic peg to UST was the former identity. We are LUNC now and there is no peg to USTC. There is no peg at all. There is no link between LUNC and USTC.
The question is whether we pursue the old path which led to disaster and hope it wonât this time? Or forge a new path for LUNC as its own coin with its own strengths?
I believe in the latter and thatâs what my vision is for LUNC, as I explain in my validator roadmap.
3 Likes
Sorry but there is still a link with ustc, yesâŚ
You can mint ustc by burning lunc.
You just interrupted luncâs store of value responsibility to ustc by interrupting the exchange from ustc to luncâŚ
See how the ustc and lunc charts move.
It is not the subject of this debate, but your quaima-based proposal does not work for projects with a marketcap of billions, because it is unrealistic to burn billions.
In your script, you only manage to build a bunch of people with big suitcases, which then creates a negative weight for those who really want to invest in construction.
Creating a feeling for the builder, (Iâm not going to spend my money and my time for those who already have the bags, to be pouring over the valuation I create) making me run out of oxygen $$, to keep myself as a builder.
But this is not a destructive criticism, itâs just my point of view as an investor and what I saw happen this year when we went adrift in terms of ecosystem valuation.
Iâll tell you even more, this speech of abandoning the ustc, was what made the ecosystem lose value and identity.
Do you have any idea of ââthe people who had Ustc and who could be engaged in the project.
You know how much it takes to build a committed and engaged community.
I know that you are having some relevance in the community, some say itâs fair, others say itâs unfairâŚ
I only ask that you do not bring this error back to the community.
Alex and others have already done enough damage to the community with this idea of ââabandoning ustc.
My proposal is that everyone who doesnât want to accept that the community just wants to try to make the assets healthy again so that each one can fulfill its functionality.
So that the ecosystem has its mark of seriousness and responsibility.
I ask you please to look for another project and another community.
Donât make us pard another year.
Or letâs use the phrase for our promotion.
âDonât worry, if something goes wrong we created the
Terra v2
Terra v3
Terra v4
Terra v5
EtcâŚ
Or we create a meme coinâ
3 Likes
This is not true, that mechanism was disabled and there is no such link. Both LUNC and USTC are being burned with no minting. See here StakeBin | Terra Classic. Please DYOR.
2 Likes
2 Likes
For those who need more information on the whole caymon island please do research, in fact ill make it easy heres the link, this suggestion needs to be a big YES if we are to attract big investors and builders
https:// www. omm. com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts/daos-looking-for-limited-liability-and-legal-personality/
1 Like