Multi-signature wallet discussion

Governance & Proposals
123

Hi @godoal (and all) ,

I have heard a pastor once wisely say, summing up some of the Bible’s teaching on the topic, that courage is rooted in conviction (it does not mean that you may not be afraid, but it means you push forward with something because the core of conviction moves you to believe it so strongly that you must act). For me, it is a conviction that (as I mentioned in an earlier post):

I will say that as far as I am concerned this is the one proposal that gets the funds from the much talked about multi-signature wallet to the community pool, and upholds the way governance was envisioned along the way. The other plans have gray areas, allow for consolidation of influence and vision using the finances of the wallet, and in at least one area, in one proposal, allows 1 person to hold a significant amount of money as an individual. That last part is concerning no matter the person (myself included). As a financial process, [it] is not wise to allow one person to individually manage and have sole direct access to a significant amount of assets, and would not be a financial model used in a professional setting.

My experience in organizational life has shown me that those proposals will lead to undermining governance, not enhancing it (and on a governance based chain like this one, it is governance that provides the accountability - but a situation like what I logically follow through in some of what I have read of other rough draft, proposal discussion, or publicly posted, proposals on this topic can easily undermine that process). I do not believe the other proposal discussions, or proposal(s) that I have read will be beneficial in the mid, or long term, (and if their is a violation of trust that leads to inappropriate handling of assets in the short run, than it will not be beneficial in the short run either) for this chain.

At this point, it will require each of you (and any others you know of that feel similarly), if you also believe that this proposal is the best path forward to protect governance, provide an appropriate level of accountability, while also allowing a streamlined version of grants to help fund Layer 1, infrastructure, Terra Station, code and related non-code associated items.

Here is what is needed for those desiring to help (Action Steps):

  • You need to read both proposals, and then write to (email, on their website contact form, in discord or telegram) Validators (not spam, but actual write them). You should focus your communication to those in the “Not Voted Tab” or “Yes” tab of the other proposal (10940). Please be courteous, ask them to support the proposal associated with this proposal (10936) by voting “No” or “No With Veto” on the other proposal (10940).

    • It is important that the validator be allowed to make their final decision based on what they believe is the best for their delegates, with the input of their delegates, and for the Terra v1 governance community as a whole. In other words, please feel free to make your case, be prepared to answer any questions if they ask, but please affirm that you respect their ultimate decision.

    • The email addresses are listed in the voting sections for both proposals, and when you click on the validator link at the bottom of the voting section for a proposal, many have a “Terra Validators” button, click that, and it will give you more information such as website, discord, telegram, and social media sites).

    • Stress that at this point, if they are supportive of proposal 10936, that they will also need to vote “No” to proposal 10940. And please thank them for their consideration.

    • If they have not voted for this proposal 10936 (the proposal associated with this proposal discussion) yet, then:

    • That does not mean that individuals are not important, and if you can communicate with individuals (or that is what you feel most comfortable with), then by all means do that, but we have a limited window of time (the other proposal closes voting on 11/28/2022 at 9:09pm UTC).

  • This is why it is a little awkward having two opposing proposals at the same time. However, the good part is that it gives governance the option between both proposals.

    • In order for this proposal, proposal 10936 to carry, and to take effect, it will mean the other proposal, proposal 10940, will need to have “No” + “No With Veto” be greater than “Yes”, or that “No With Veto” is greater than, or equal to, 33.4% when the vote closes. You can confirm this formula for voting in the tallying documentation.

Thank you for those of you who choose to participate in this way, in a courteous manner, and outlining the merits of why you believe this proposal, rather than the other, would serve this system best, and protect governance.

Current Proposal Open For Voting - Proposal 10936:

Note:

  • There is an apparent problem in Terra Station’s pagination. Update: A few days ago a new proposal pushed proposal 10936 off the visible area both in the white list section and in the “voting” tab. However, another new proposal has now reconfigured things, so now proposal 10936 shows on page 2 of both the white list, and in the “voting” tab (click through page on bottom right side in Terra Station). You can also use the direct link https://station.terra.money/proposal/10936 to vote and track the proposal results.
    • For a tutorial of how to connect Terra Station wallet to “classic” network (Terra v1) to be able to vote, click here