LUNC Community Custodian

Governance & Proposals
1

Logo Horizontal
Logo Horizontal1920Ă—768 87.3 KB

A little background about this proposal is that I began writing this sometime in December when I was still in the TR server as far as I think. After I got the hint of what was about to come, I separated myself from all other entities or individuals in the community (to remain as neutral as possible), and concentrated on what could be a charter for the financial, legal and other responsibilities required to be taken up on the chain.

I submitted this proposal to Prof. Edward Kim and received feedback on it in January. I am sharing it with the community, unchanged in form, since I want to get more feedback on it before I decide to move with it. There are a couple of more proposals which which were lined up after this, but I haven’t moved with it yet, since I want the community to first come to an understanding about what is required to be done, and what it takes to do what is required to be done.

Once you go through this proposal, it will be evident why it is required to be doxxed to even apply to be part of this entity which has been proposed. Hence, I have not mentioned any other member as part of the proposal apart from myself. I have introduced myself in the proposal and hopefully, provided enough details for every section of the document. I am submitting this here now, because I feel a discussion about the points mentioned in the attached document might be necessary at this point of time in the journey of Terra Luna Classic.

NOTE:

This document is best viewed on a desktop with a minimum resolution of 1920x1080px. However, a PDF version is provided as well for offline view.

(RECOMMENDED) Online Version URL:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/r4psohutx54w2b3oy3gxe/LUNC-Community-Custodian.paper?dl=0&rlkey=hnnnoic3csjwo69x8hdkvuc8y

Offline PDF (ATTACHED and also) available at:

This document is divided into smaller components or sections that can be browsed using the bookmarks on the left (if viewing on desktop in the Dropbox Paper application).

It is a request from the original author of this document to take the time to go through each section in detail. Making a TL;DR of this document would not have been possible since it has multiple sections with hyperlinks, embedded documents and images.

LUNC_Community_Custodian_-_Community_Edition.pdf (1.2 MB)

2

I will give it a second, thorough, reading later, but first glance few notes:

  • UDT has stopped development and is ceasing their validator. (For time being, as per their words)
  • While the idea of a neutral and legal party is great, the proposal is heavily tilted and misconstrues part of the self-presented history in a biased manner.
    Can’t get over TR, Arubasu?
  • Idea is not a bad one, yet it ultimately is: We continue as Community Chain brand, any mans brand or we try to centralize it and everything connected to it with the pretext of safety and caution.

*May Crash of 22 wasn’t a hack, though, it was poorly written code on FLG-s part and malicious counter-activity on part of a third party. Plus many mistakes made in handling it.

2 Likes
3

Thanks for the comments. Yes, there have been some developments after I wrote this. Some development teams have changed and validators have also changed.

The TR part is not a primary element of the plan. It can work without it also. Since I was covering the legal part, at the time of the writing the plan, that part was also of importance. I do not know whether it is of importance anymore. It can definitely be removed, as required.

This is not a centralisation plan. The entity will remain completely independent of all other individuals and entities in the entire ecosystem. I am also open to making the number of members required in this plan to be more than 1-2. But that is, if so many people are available. The entity can work with 1-2 people as well.

4

Thank you Arunaday. Yes we do need the representation you define. And yes you are one of the guys we can hopefully trust to put this forward not just with aiming for yet another power grab and ego trip. But its likely a very hot topic due to the at least implied power issue. This community has built up a history of factional in fighting for superiority and control. I believe addressing the ongoing power struggles and providing tools to negate them will be central to any successful way forward.

2 Likes
5

Which is why I am taking this slow. I am hoping that everyone in the community is going to read this cause reading the entire thing is more important than implementing it.

In this plan, I have tried to assimilate all the loopholes we currently have on the chain and provide sensible solutions to those in the form of services.

The work is hard and rigorous but if anyone begins doing at least one section of this plan, then the value of LUNC will immediately double whatever it is currently.

Right now what we have in LUNC is distributed. Someone needs to sit and bring all these moving parts together so that they work like a unified unit. And this plan is an attempt at doing just that.

Thanks for your kind words.

6

To move forward and entice any interested parties the chain has to be run like the business it is, and in my opinion, requires a whole host of procedures put in place to meet the legal and other requirements of the chain. Anyone receiving any funding for development or acting in any other official position. “NEEDS TO BE DOXXED AND CONTRACTS WRITTEN UP WITH ALL THE RELEVANT INVOICES AND RECEIPTS FILED filed AWAY”.

There needs to be a clear direction based on SMART, achievable and precise steps. Appointing the relevant, lawyers, business analysts and accountants, et cetera would go a long way to fix the issues we are currently facing. Once this is done, it will create a lot more trust in the wider cryptocurrency community and potentially establish a lot more opportunities in the future for developing dapps and partnering with other chains.

We seem to have been a little slow in implementing the practices and procedures that any good business depends on to build brand trust and awareness; in addition to bringing in long-term business partners.

Any prop that attempts to fix these issues are welcome by me, and I fully support it.

1 Like
7

I’d suggest the entire community watches this video and also reads the section where I have discussed licenses and the cost behind acquiring them.

This would have happened, and I had discussed this almost 4 months back when I was still in the TR server and Zaradar was in TR.

TR was quite sure that the components they are using will never be licensed. Well, right now they are working on L2 so licenses will apply for them later. But at first they will immediately apply to the code which has our Rust cargo builds. Then it will apply to all the applications which have deployed their contracts to Terra Luna Classic.

Please watch and listen to the video carefully about the changes which are required to be done in the code and in the documentation of the code.

https://classic-docs.terra.money/docs/learn/community-trust.html

Basically this document says that there is no legal existence of this community yet, so if you take money for doing a particular piece of work for the community, the resulting work automatically becomes commercial, since you have engaged in a commercial activity (converted to fiat to pay your expenses) for the work that you have done.

TFL, the “company” which has made this so-called “trust” is a company, so until and unless Terra Luna Classic is registered as a non-profit, it is automatically a profit-making entity. So all laws which apply to commercial entities also apply to us.

Forget about that, Terraport had their “Rust” contract hacked during the engagement of a commercial activity. They literally lost the funds of investors.

We have also minted extra USTC just recently because of issues that were there in the code co-existing with the Rust contracts.

So, I would suggest @LuncBurnArmy checks this and other developers also who are working on DEXs, games, etc on Rust contracts.

Sooner or later, everything will have to be licensed unless you want the Community Pool to pay for your legal mistakes. We will end up paying more than what we would have had to pay to get the legal licenses.