Multi-signature wallet discussion

Governance & Proposals
58

Hi Aeuser999,

Thank you for taking your time to clarify and answer questions.

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 110: Bringing Terra Stablecoins to Solana - Community Pool Funding (~$240K):

Yes, through community spend proposals we would be able to access the funds in the community pool. You explanation and the linked props are appreciated but they do not address my concern. Why, they are all pre-crash related props. The 1B we have in the community pool right now simple isn’t of the same value. This is why I see value in having access and exposure to other chains and assets. If managed correctly we could get a nice APR/APY on the 4.16m to help cover costs.

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.

Agreed, in my opinion it still is healthy to have exposure to other assets and chains. Supposed to just locking it up on chain in our community pool. Payments can also be made from this multi-sig without jumping through hoops to get it on chain (this deal wasn’t on the table to begin with, the current multi-sig owners could’ve done this if they wanted to a long time ago). On a sidenote the newly posted proposal of buying back and burning is really just a waste of money. We’re not gonna make it by just burning, we need to reinstate the blockchain as it was. This way we’ll really be deflationary again beyond any introduced tax.

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.

I don’t know anything about the legal liabilities and a check is a must yeah. I just don’t agree with the moving it to the community pool part. There’s currently 1B in there and there is yet to be written a proposal to spend it in the correct way. This is why I believe to have some leaders instated that can help guide us. A lot of people that bought in to this project are new to this space and the correct guidance is needed. Also restoring parity and getting devs from LUNA 2 to build or copy and paste there dApps on the classic chain would go a long way. All this and more could be done faster then waiting on governance to clear such things.

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.

Agreed, in this text it also says that the assets taken from the community pool for the described purpose will be repaid. https://classic-agora.terra.money/t/proposal-to-significantly-increase-liquidity-on-ethereum-curve-ust-pools-through-the-use-of-votium-convex-and-tokemak/2968#proposal-2-self-supplied-convex-liquidity-4 so if the funds we’re returned prior to the crash, is this then to be considered a loan that has been repaid? And thus are the signors free to do with the money as they please.

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.

I’m in agreement that the governance proposal is there to be used and works accordingly. Next to this, cause I believe and am in favor of coexistence, we should use these funds outside of this structure to our benefit. We are talking about millions on a billion dollar valued blockchain. I rather have some leadership now as I said in this text before to. Restore parity and upgrade the chain to get builders over so real sustainable value can come back. Real use cases, these are the things we need before interest dwindles and people move on. The burn narrative was a nice one to unite the community now it’s time to move on and admit that it was unsustainable and quality dApps that are ripe for the picking aren’t. I see a future in coexisting with LUNA 2, the story of two rising moons intrigues me.

Thanks for this huge response. I hope anything I wrote down above makes any sense at all, if not please let me know.

Hope you have an great day and an awesome week!