I really want to thank each of you for the time you spent in reading, considering, conversations, and engaging, in a courteous manner, with individuals and with validators. Thank You SO Much.
Unfortunately, the issue is not over since it appears a new proposal (10967), by the same proposal author as 10940, dealing with the same issue, and adjusting certain aspects of proposal 10940 has been re-posted.
I leave you with the same thoughts, that are still true of the newly posted v4 proposal (10967) by the same author, that I mentioned before (and then ask for you to engage once again to help protect the proposal in this discussion thread, proposal 10936, which has now passed)(Please see the Action Items highlighted section below):
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 this proposal, and the newly posted proposal from the other proposal author, 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 “No” tab of the v3 of other proposal that has closed and not passed (10940), and those in the “Yes” tab of the proposal for this current discussion thread which has passed already (10936). Please be courteous, ask them to support the proposal associated with this proposal (10936 ), which has already passed, by voting “No” or “No With Veto” on the now v4 proposal 10967.
-
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 10967. And please thank them for their consideration.
-
Include the direct link https://station.terra.money/proposal/10967 for their consideration, which they can use to vote against and track the proposal.
-
In addition, please engage with individuals courteously regarding the merits, and ask them if they may preserve this proposal that has passed 10936 by voting “No” or “No With Veto” on the other proposal v4 (proposal 10967).
-
Thank you again 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.
I hope you have a wonderful day today 