Hi @Nigel80sKid ,
It is good to hear from you - I appreciate your well thought out questions (they are really helpful - thank you).
If we put all the money in the community pool as suggested, how will we as a community pay for
upkeep and LCD points in the future? If/when TFL decides that they won’t spot the bill anymore…
These would be community spend proposals. This is how the decentralized nature of Terra v1 governance is setup to work, and has served it well for the past two years. In fact, just sampling 7 early spend proposals for grants shows that these proposals were used for infrastructure, tooling, as well as extending the use case of the protocol:
- Proposal 35: RPC Endpoint and API Infrastructure Proposal (~$43.5K):
- Proposal 51: Proposal: PayWithTerra Community Pool Funding (~$37.4K):
- Proposal 67: LocalTerra - Development - Comunnity Pool Funding (~$86K):
- Proposal 98: Proposal: Funding for Andromeda NFT Protocol 1.0 (~$126K):
- Proposal 100: Proposal: Funding for Kado (~$126K):
- Proposal 110: Bringing Terra Stablecoins to Solana - Community Pool Funding (~$240K):
- Proposal 115: Bringing Terra stablecoins to Solana pt. 2 (and beyond) (~$495K):
Why is it difficult for a lot of people to understand, the risk of devaluation, that comes with placing all these funds in the community pool. There are still a lot of volatile events ahead of us I reckon. A multisig wallet with exposure to several assets and pools is way more robust if compared to our community pool.
Transferring assets to the community pool is meant more for expenditures through governance, not necessarily as a financial investment. The assets could be returned to be used for required maintenance of the Layer 1 chain, infrastructure, and related aspects.
Why not just take control of the funds? I’ve read multiple times that this is the only deal on the table currently anyway. Appoint new signors and take control before this opportunity is lost to the community forever.
The assets themselves appear to be off-chain currently. This proposal is one way forward to make sure to conduct a legal review of the assets, liquidate, and then move the assets on-chain to the community pool as quickly as possible. It attempts to also outline minimum requirements the community should look for, and a proposer seeking grants from these specific funds should expect to provide for due diligence (including milestones per project with a new grant proposal for the next milestone - for projects over $30K).
It is good to remember that these funds have existed since the crash, and are not necessarily going anywhere beyond where the current signers feel meets the original objective outlined regarding those funds (including if that means returning the funds back to the community pool). In terms of proposals, it is the role of the community to raise them, discuss them, incorporate good merits from the discussion into the final, and to make sure any proposals are solid proposals. This discussion is seeking the best of the community’s thinking around the spirit of the proposal outlined in the description of the discussion.
Has anyone asked him/herself the question why TFL created this multisig in the first place? I will leave this link for everyone interested. It’s an Agora text: Proposal to significantly increase liquidity on Ethereum Curve UST pools through the use of Votium, Convex, and Tokemak
That was really good research 
I am not an attorney, and a legal review should be conducted, but my own research regarding the funds has lined up with yours. Those funds most likely are associated with:
- proposals 148, 149, and 153 (all are related - curve pool liquidity):
The proposal discussions fill in a good amount of history behind those assets, and the fact that the assets most likely originally came from the community pool, and for that reason I personally believe that a legal review would mostly center on whether the assets are in fact from these proposals, and if so, determining if they are clear of any legal liabilities (and particularly any legal liabilities from the May time frame). These are only personal observations for whatever they are worth.
Lastly I really don’t believe a seven day decision protocol for each and every decision… is the way to go.
Personally I believe the current Terra v1 governance process is the way to go (so I realize we may disagree on that point - however I would be interested in hearing your thoughts as to why you believe it is not the best). As I pointed out above the Terra v1 governance system, and community pool spend proposals, have been the way the system has been setup to function in a decentralized nature, which can be seen both from the documentation, from the original white paper, as well as from the foundation of how proof-of-stake is intended to work to protect the protocol and network.
In proof-of-stake it is those who hold the stake that the validators are using are those who are securing the actual network - that is why they get a say in governance in proof-of-stake (and particularly in this governance based chain based upon staked LUNA v1). The validators do preform a service in supplying the actual hardware, but it is a partnership (and one in which the validators themselves, based on their own stake, are also a part of governance). Governance is the thing that holds not only the ability to decide the future of the chain, and who has influence over it, including financially (and to what degree), but are the ones that hold the keys (and where validators do not listen and ignore proposals that have passed, as long as the proposals are not illegal, create a liability situation, or are outside of governance’s jurisdiction, then it is the role of each member to consider removing their stake and stake it with others who do listen, or start their own validator).
When governance has a concern, it is not a distraction (as some have claimed - not you), it is what marks a central issue that requires discussion on the merits to help determine a path forward.
The idea that things should happen rather quickly, in a way that easily can use assets to consolidate influence, and therefore vision, as well as relationships (which can bypass governance) - is very concerning to me.
My time in organizational life has allowed me to see that those who control the finances in many way are the ones who determine the direction and vision of an organization’s life. I think it is best to follow the path of governance to make sure that these are issues that the Terra v1 governance community, in the long term, as well as the short term, does not lose the ability to determine.
Thank you so much for the very thought provoking questions (and very insightful research on question 4 ). I look forward too to hearing further discussion that helps to refine the proposal under discussion, while still maintaining its core spirit, for the benefit of the community overall.
Also too, since @Pholuna has mentioned your post had many of the same questions, and since I have to wait 30 min between posting on classic-agora, I am hoping that this may answer those questions as well. The only point that I may not have covered was Alex’s Medium post. If I am thinking of the same article you may be, I think the only thing I would say, as a personal opinion, from my own legal understanding, is that burning assets will not remove any legal liabilities if they were to exist. This proposal’s legal review should enable any potential legal issues with the funds to be addressed in a satisfying manner (let me know too @Pholuna any thoughts you may have, any clarifying aspects that would be good to be considered, or points for discussion - I would really appreciate it - and I hope you are doing well ).
I hope you are having an awesome day today