There are 2/3 similar proposals, unite, support your idea
1 Like
If terra classic doesnât want to manage old chain. They should let a takeover by another third party.
New leader or team must have financial power, human resources, good influence or reputation among crypto. We are a good solid community that lacks proper guidance.
1 Like
I will share my opinion. I think that the remaining validators and developers who did not support the Kwon plan will take over the board. Itâs also a big validator who can lead the Luna Classic, so donât worry, this project will not be left without a captain) there is a suspicion that Kwon will not go far, but will do two projects and see what happens.
6 Likes
As I have been saying since the beginning of the end, when the new coin was announced. We will have limited time to enact a plan. I have tried to get the best possible plan forward as quickly as I could but the evidence that things are getting worse by the day are showing.
As expected post snapshot, and with no clear plan voted on or being implemented alreadyâŚ
- Price is dropping on UST by almost 50% despite news of the UST burn
- Price declines on LUNC between 10-20%
- CEXâs are starting to remove from thier platforms, or stop transactions indefinitely
- An exodus is already happening on the Validator side, as they are either absent, or even worse closing their accounts. 0rion being the largest to disappear.
This is why we need to get a plan in place.
Please any Validators left out there before your positions trail down to 0 lets get our plan a chance and move forward to revive this ecosystem. Before itâs too late.
Go to
And vote yes to save LUNC & USTC.
I think you are right, there were at least 5/7 important validators who voted in favor of Burn, maybe they will take matters into their own hands
1 Like
the challenge seems to get hold of the right people and get them on board - it seems as if validators somehow donât care. If you really want to take leadership, you have to get the backup of the validators. This means understanding and giving them what they want. potentially a multi bn usd bounty, and no one really manages to make a go for it - itâs amazingâŚ
This is what I am working on, but it was already difficult before the attack to contact the Validators, now itâs almost impossible.
There is no email list or any way to contact them via Station. The ones that have emails set up there are not working.
Also we are loosing validators each day that goes on and with the staking feature off, no new validators can be added. This is why I kept saying we needed to act now.
I agree we need to offer the Validators something in return for their support. I would love to be able to discuss this with them. See what they want.
Thank you and Iâm always looking for good ideas and help to get this done.
1 Like
What do you mean by we need to act now? What can we do? We contacted too many validators during the burn and remedy proposal. Although there was light, nothing happened in the end. I still have hope, but there are too many uncertainties now need to be enlightened
If you have the ability to contact Validators still than that is what we need.
Many donât check Station regularly (if they will at all now). I need to know what it is they want in a plan. They are part of the community, as well as an integral part of the ecosystem so they need to have a say in any plan.
I say act now as every day that goes by will make any plan that much more difficult to get approved and implemented successfully as the tokens wind their way down to 0.
Important update!
Plan part 4 - Staking /Validators & Governance
** Updated May-27
Validators play an important role in our community and this program needs to be protected to ensure the future of our ecosystem. That said adjustments need to be made for both the good of the community and with the validator community as well. There are smaller validators who make less, have less voting power etc than say the top 5 validators combined which at one time accounted for a third of the network.
For this reason I want to update the payout structure to help give more balance to this program. Commisions with a minimum of 5% and up to 15% if attainable are fair. Commision rates are based on variables within the system, and partially dependant on validators that provide quality service to the network vs just quantity alone. I do not know what this will look like yet, but will be working on a plan for this system after discussing with the current validators.
Furthermore in order to work towards a more equal voting structure, we will look to implement the following changes in order to give smaller validators more voting power. Tweaking the balance structure to shift the scale of voting weight in order to prevent a small number ov validators from having dominant voting power. This could include percentage caps, among other ideas that will bw discussed with validators.
In addition, in order to further enhance the overall fairness of the system, governance will be opened up to all holders of LUNC. In order to maintain a healthy system there will be paramiters set up (ones that can be adjusted to maintain stability), as follows. Validators would be accountable for up to 75 percent of the vote, leaving the remaining 25 percent to come from LUNC holders. This could give more weight to the smaller validators as thier position will more likley align with holders. There will be a registration system set up, and the voting costs (if any) by general holders would be minimal.
1 Like
I think the governance system should be changed to eliminate the need to stake LUNA in order to vote.
One LUNA should equal one vote for everyone, and not the current biased system that gives a very small amount of LUNA control over the entire governance system.
Also, we have witnessed over the last couple of weeks how easy it was for the current governance system to be hijacked and we need safeguards in place in the protocol to ensure that could not happen again.
If nothing else this debacle has demonstrated how easy it is for PoS blockchains to be controlled by a very small group in such a way as to massively disadvantage the majority.
Lol 5%, there are zero fee for validators⌠Cmon stop the nonsense. Nobody will not appoint you if you are not having any validators or part of Team. Talking is cheap, bring the actions, come up with 100 validators to support your own idea to beat current validators power.
1 Like
That IS what I am proposing. Every holder will have a vote. Validators may have a heavier hand in the voting structure, but this system creates a more fair balance wheras one side or the other cannot control the vote.
Furthermore the idea of capping the value of a validators vote to x% gives other smaller validators (whose intentions align more with general holders than the larger validators) more say in the voting results. Currently when a few large validators control the vote, plans like New Luna coin get voted in. It was 65% in favor, which was probobly the top 10 to 15 validators for the most part. If we had my structure it wouldnât have passed most likely.
The reason validators have the vote is they have a lot more at stake (no pun intended) than a holder.
What has happened with the validators controlling fhe vote, can also happen with holders in general, where a small number of large whales can control the vote. This structureprovides the best protection from this happening.
The 0% commusion validators are the smallest ones and are only doing so either âfor the communityâ or in hopes of growing large enough to earn a commision. Do you really believe they choose to do this for free?
I am working on gaining validator support. Why do you think a change like this was added? Also I donât need 100 just enough to pass without veto theeshold lol.
I have no problem with a majority of LUNA controlling the vote (even if this is one or two whales - and in anycase I think it unlikely a few whales could control more LUNA than the combined holdings of the community at large, but if they did, so be it).
This is how a fair governance system should work - the majority carries the vote. Everyone equally has the same opportunity to go and buy more governance influence if they feel strongly enough to challenge on any given proposal put up for voting.
What is intolerable is the current rigged governance that gives 0.01% of LUNA control, and no way to challenge that.
Isnât this kind of irrelevant, since the incumbents have rigged the protocol so it is now impossible to add new validator nodesâŚso without cooperation of the incumbents (which seems unlikely) there is just this stalemate situation, which I am sure suits TFL and their aligned validators just fine.
TFL do not want any progress on Terra Classic as it will overshadow their efforts to make the v2 launch successful, imho.
But you also just answered your own question. What plan that calls for their voting rights being stripped could ever be passed by the same? That WAS why my plan failed as they did not like that I dis exactly what you said. I had it origionally that all holders get the vote.
Unfortunately with any system rigged or not you need to comprimise. The sustem I developed does a good job at removing those blocades and startes the process to a fully fair vote system. It is a step towards what you are suggesting which I do agree would be a fair sustem.
Not all the validators are the ones that control the vote, and not all are bad players either. In fact a small percentage of them do and are. The top 5 controlled 33% of the vote. With my system they would be capped at say 2% each so that same 5 top validators would have 7.5% of the vote as validators as a group have 75%.
Again that is a good start to fixing a broken system.
That may have been a valid point BEFORE THE New coin launch, but now they have no incentive on this system to cater to Do Kwon or TFL at all now. In fact the tables are turned as they will soon realize (if they havenât already) that by reviving LUNC & USTC based on their holdings they stand to make a decent amount of money. They already got their new coins and are doing well over there. This would be like icing on the cake.
I was not criticising your plan in any way - I would have been very happy to see it pass. I was just writing about what is on my mind!
I think you missed the point I was making that the incumbents currently control the vote through their rigging of the governance system, not because they hold a majority - basically they orchestrated a coup!
I hope Iâm wrong but I think they would like this stalemate to continue long enough that Terra Classic becomes irrelevant and Terra v2 is firmly established.