Multi-signature wallet discussion

Agree. Community pool is not 100% protection. Funds can go away like 1.6m ustc recently (100% ustc holders don’t support this, like oracle ustc distribution).

P.S. Vegas, you support Terra or only lunc?
You against ustc burn (oracle)?

5 Likes

are you saying Vegas and Raider are no good but you chill for Alex (“SELL YOUR LUNC”, insults members of TR,guy works in finances and gives poor financial advice to capitalize for his company bosses, guy does a proposal to drop 1,2% that failed) you are simply a bad person if you chil for this thief, rog puller.

Edit1: i will add more since there is plenty more

2 Likes

Add more all you want selmo, im not interested in being vicious.

You have your opinion and i have mine.
My opinion wont change so feel free to waste your time

2 Likes

Who exactly asked you, boy?

@Vegas, @aeuser999, Thank you for this post, it’s definitely trying to address a lot of sticky points on a very important subject.

I do like the idea that the multisig will be managed by appointed/approved validators and the community pool will have a veto voice over releasing funds through it, which makes the fund management impartial from a decentralized/community point of view.

Also, I do like the logic of the project funding cycle and the legal protection wrapping for any fund release/management action.

I am not sure I understand the point in regard to the actual funding process cycle. The way I read it, and please correct me if I’m wrong, is as follows:
Once the project is costed, the multisig owners (assume no community pool veto) release the funds for the project into the Community Pool (I assume the $ are converted into the LUNC CP or maybe USTC CP so that it also contributes to the LUNC burn via swap). From there on a contract (or manual process) is distributing the funds (periodically?/in one go?) to the wallets appointed by the “project” where the owner of each wallet can do as they wish (even liquidate to avoid market volatility).

Looking forward to your comment on that last point.

Thank again.
:metal:

2 Likes

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:

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 :slight_smile: 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:

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 :slight_smile: ). 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 :slight_smile: ).

I hope you are having an awesome day today :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Hi @godoal ,

Those are some great comments and questions.

I think it is a fair point to acknowledge that as written currently, there are two options in regards to the potential signers (which is seeking discussion).

  • The first option mentioned is a group of 9 of the highest voting power validators, with Vegas Validator disqualified, who are willing to accept the role as signers.

  • An alternative option (which can not exist with the first option - it is one or the other) mentioned community members being elected (which could include representatives of validators), and the community having the ability through vote to veto. So, the veto idea, as it currently is written, is mainly for the second option (the alternative option). It appears it may require a new proposal type to be introduced if this option is selected (taking into account the merits of this discussion around this point).

The real point of the new signers would be to arrange for a legal review of the assets, and if the assets do not have any liabilities or claims that would prevent a transfer, to liquidate the off-chain assets, convert the assets to an on-chain denomination, and then transfer the assets to the community pool. This is what major point 1 deals with in the outline in the description of the proposal discussion. Major point 2 deals with who are signers, and the logistics for accepting the role as a signer and liability protection.

Regarding your point (which major point 3 of the outline in the description of the proposal discussion attempts to deal with):

I am not sure I understand the point in regard to the actual funding process cycle.

That is good to know that it may need some more clarity. Here is basically what point 3 is saying:

  • All assets would have been transferred to the community pool as part of the major point 1 and 2 (so the multi-signature wallet at that point has no assets remaining - their task is done).

  • Once those assets are in the community pool, major point 3 of the outline attempts to outline a way to track general assets in the community pool vs. the assets that came in from the multi-signature wallet. It attempts to provide an accounting since both would be put into the same community pool. This may help the current multi-signature wallet holders feel more comfortable that the funds would be used to help with Layer 1, infrastructure, and related expenses in maintaining the chain. If the current mutli-signature wallet owners are not concerned with this, this section could be further simplified.

  • It states that a person seeking a grant(s) for a project must determine how much is actually available from these specific assets that came from the multi-signature wallet (which are part of the community pool), and state that in the discussion for their grant proposal (ie. their discussion for their community pool spending proposal). This is very similar to accounting where there can be one account, but it has been split and tracked as several funds. In this case there would be one account (the community pool) and two funds (general, and “multi-signature wallet return assets”).

  • It also states the person(s)/project seeking the grant have to signal that they are asking for a grant based on these assets vs. general assets (both sets of assets making up the community pool, and both sets of assets having the ability to provide grants). If they do not state which group of assets, it will be assumed they are seeking the grant from the general funds in the community pool.

  • It states that if the proposal ask is over $30,000, that they need to use the following 3 milestones (otherwise they just make one ask for a grant proposal for the whole project). Each milestone would be one community spend proposal, and then come back and ask for the next grant for the next milestone (in a new community pool spend proposal).

    • For Instance:
      • A project that is seeking the equivalent of $200K in grants would go through:
        • Inital project pitch (in a proposal discussion), with details of how the project would work (seeks $20K for requirements and design), that becomes a community pool spend proposal for the equivalent of $20K.

        • Assuming their proposal passed governance, and they have completed milestone 1 (requirements and design), they come back and report to the community they have finished milestone 1, showing they have done the work, and answering due diligence questions (in a new proposal discussion). They seek $150K for coding and internal testing (or if it is infrastructure related then for hardware/data-center-resources and setup). This becomes a $150K community pool spend proposal.

        • Assuming the second proposal passed governance, and once milestone 2 (code and test ready - or equivalent if non-code related) is done, they come back and report to the community that they have finished milestone 2, showing they have done the work, and answering due diligence questions. They seek $30K for final testing, rework, and shipped/accepted/deployment. This becomes their final community pool spend proposal.

  • This proposal does allow for the use of smart contracts, but does not necessarily require them. Without any smart contracts, it requires the Terra v1 governance community to using the outline to address if the grant recipient has meet the guidelines. The creation of the Terra Grants Foundation may be a very helpful partner to the community in this process to the degree it meets the goals it was founded for (and as they agree to).

  • The proposal acknowledges that the whole of point 3 in the outline is suggestive, since it is really up to governance to properly vet, and any person can put in a community spend proposal for a grant. However, it does give an outline of expectations to:

    • the person apply for a grant through the community pool spend proposal mechanism (for these specific multi-signature assets returned), as well as to
    • the Terra v1 governance community for how that process should work to help maintain good accountability (while still allowing it to not become overly cumbersome), and
    • allows for the tracking of the availability of the assets themselves from the multi-signature wallet (which is helpful to the degree the funds should be used to help with Layer 1 development, infrastructure, and maintenance of the blockchain).

In reality major point 3 of the outline for this proposal mainly follows the same community pool spend proposal procedure that has been used historically. It does additionally add a way to track the funds, signal if the grant is targeting general funds or the assets returned from the multi-signature wallet(s), and provides a milestone outline that can help both the person(s)/project seeking a grant, as well as Terra v1 governance, to know what things they should report, and should look for, as minimums. Looking into some of the previous grant proposals discussion does show that even without these there has been a good level of engagement and discussion - the major point 3 of the outline just looks to help give a process to help in those discussions for accountability purposes. In all honesty, without smart contracts or a change in the proposal structure, it would be suggestive to governance (since it does not stop a community pool spend proposal from passing without these). As mentioned above, this is also where the Terra Grants Foundation, as an entity that is organized in order to help the process in proposal discussions for vetting purposes, as well as to seek out potential qualified recipients to help meet goals of Terra v1 governance community and the maintenance of the blockchain, can be very helpful (to the degree that entity agrees).

I hope that helps out a little bit.

I hope you have a great day today :slight_smile:

4 Likes

I believe that of the 6 multi-sigs, 3 should be chosen by and (if he agrees) should include CZ Binance.

My reasoning being that CZ is already burning equivalent funds from Binance’s own fees.

He is trusted by the majority of the community as someone who supports our cause and has the resources to background check the signatories he chooses.

This will also help solidify the community’s relationship with CZ.

The other 3 signatories, wether from TR or not, should be fully doxed to him for any future legal issues.

Perhaps the required community majority would accept this.

2 Likes

Slow mode is so tiresome!

CZ’s legal team would also have the resources to carry out any required Legal review of the assets contained and woe betide any of the chosen signatories who attempt to misuse these funds in the eyes of the community.

Thank you

1 Like

I would like to see this $4,16m used to buy USDT, a substantial amount initially and the rest bought over time.

The initial amount to be used to compensate TR efforts (and others who deserve) for the last 6 months and for the first coming months.

The rest of the $4,16 to be used to buy back USDT consistently for x period of time. With the goal in mind to repeg, the USDT amount bought around current market price, would increase in value over time if we succeed to repeg, enough to have a funding pool for TR/other contributors to the chain.

WHY USDT?
Everything we can do to contribute to repeg will in time help LUNC 1000x more than the use of 4,16m in LUNC would now.

1 Like

This is one of the better proposals here, at least it is open, without lawyers and other huge mistakes. CZ is the biggest player at the moment, worth having Ronaldo on your team…

2 Likes

Hi, everyone
I have one more thing to say on this matter, because sweeping under the carpet solves nothing - I repeat. What is going on here?
I’m living in a CCCP vs USA war zone. Of course these wrestlers know that their fat bodies if one falls over will destroy everything around them. That is why the USA takes advantage of the naivety of my countrymen. It controls TV and RADIO 100% and uses Poland and the Ukraine as a battleground for supremacy. Not only that, it is using our resources, developed over the years, destroying our economy and selling us old useless weapons lying in their warehouses.
I will therefore ask the wise people again, can you not see that you are being manipulated?
Someone wants to lay a paw on the resources earned by the TR? I ask on what grounds? How can someone’s property be appropriated I answer, by war or lawyers.
Are you aware of what you are doing?

Usdt will be in same place. If we start buying and burning(or collecting) ustc, the price and ease of repeg will increase. And sure, repeg can make even more x1000 for lunc.

Your passive aggressiveness has no limits. Still waiting for your postmortem analysis of your failed tax reduction proposal, come to discord when you are done. :wink:

As for Vegas proposal, whatever so alex and his crew (am looking at you akujiro) do not put their hands on the funds. These people are well known bad actors and should be banished from our community .

4 Likes

Doing it as Alex suggested would render anyone on the multisig liable to money laundering charge. Burning coins and reprinting the same amount is clearly an attempt to wash funds that are uncleared. If these 4 million in fact have any liability assigned to them, then these should not be touched.

3 Likes

Fantastic proposal, very detailed, very clear.Addresses nearly if not all concerns regarding those funds, especially on the legal front. This definitely has my vote.

4 Likes

Its probably the complicated and detailed lingo since it addresses legal issues. Go slow and you will get the point.

2 Likes

Thank you for the clarification @aeuser999 that makes everything a lot clearer.
So the main points, if I can summarize, are:

  • We use funding from the multisig wallet to lawyer up and identify if there are any legal issues attached to dealing with said funds
  • We use funding from the multisig wallet to purchase legal insurance for the new signers
  • The new signers will transfer ALL multisig wallet holding into the Terra Classic community pool (Q: am I right to assume the community pool USTC wallet, after swap burn, is enabled?)
  • The community will vote via terra station (as usual) on spending proposals raised by interested parties
  • Interested parties requiring funds as part of a spending proposal need to calculate and state the remaining funds in the CP for such purpose

Therefore the “Cons” of this approach we need to be aware of are:

  • The process to calculate the remaining funds is a bit cumbersome since it requires tracking the previous spending proposal in Agora (or Terra Station) and deducting from the stated remaining funds the project spending budget
  • The process to calculate the remaining funds is a bit cumbersome and might be a deterrent for interesting projects seeking to raise a spending proposal
  • The amount of the available (for) spending proposal funds in the CP might be less than their equivalent if were stored still in the multisig due to being now in a terra classic chain denomination (i.e. LUNC, USTC etc.) which is subject to fluctuations.

, and the “Pros” are:

  • Releasing funds for a spending proposal requires the community to vote for it making this a community “owned” decision
  • Releasing funds for a spending proposal requires the community to vote using the tried and tested community mechanisms a.k.a on Terra Station via the Validator representative everyone is staking with
  • The process of releasing funds is lean since the additional (procedural) step of transferring funds from the multisig into the community pool every time there is a spending proposal raised is eliminated
  • No dormant holdings will be left on side wallets that belong to the Terra Classic community outside the community reach and voting power
  • There are no “direct” hands on the multisig holdings “pie”
  • The multising funds’ conversion into a Terra Classic community pool denomination under certain conditions can aid and speed up the reduction of the LUNC total supply
  • The multisig funds’ conversion into a Terra Classic community pool denomination re-affirms our dedication and belief to OUR communal chain.

Please feel free to intervene should you think I have missed or misinterpreted a point.
:metal:

5 Likes

Very nice proposal, it’s much clearer than Vegas’ previous proposal, it considers multiple scenarii, and it includes measures to ensure that the funds would be handled carefully (If there’s any concern about a potential liability, I agree it’s best to not touch them at all)
Everything is neatly laid out, in my opinion. It take a bit longer to read and understand, sure, but it’s all clear

There’s good transparency and accountability at every step, for the review of the legality of the funds to the election of signers, then to the signers responsabilities, and the possibility for the community to veto a decision. In regards to the signers, I think it’s a good balance to default to the top 9 validators and the next validators if one should not want to be a signer, and then to have an election. (The fact that the signers were self-elected was one of my main concerns in the other proposal about the 4.6m)

I also appreciate that the Vegas validator disqualifies himself to be a signers, that’s the proper way to do it

2 Likes

@reXxTR .I would like to jumpstart this conversation here…