Multi-signature wallet discussion

Governance & Proposals
47

Why does it have to be Validators though??? The 9 should be a mix of all those who have played a role in the coin’s revival, from the developers to the marketers to members directly from the community itself.
Validators have enough power as it is.

2 Likes
48

Good point, especially considering that given current voting power less than 10 validators can join together and force through or cancel any proposal. And yes I realize individuals can vote, but in the end it will be the validators votes that carry the day.

49

Hello, our stance has not changed. Terra Rebels as an org has nothing to do with these funds. It is to my understand that we want nothing to do with these funds as well. Terra Rebels will remain independent and have decided to completely disconnect ourselves from this topic.

5 Likes
50

You have probably missed a few posts further back. Here’s your answer:

51

If this is the case then proposal on terra station should pass without problems. Can we expect TR will execute swap and burn? Thank you in advance!

Also it’s time to start a serious discussion about grants (from community pool?) for TR team.

1 Like
52

It’s not about having power. Validators are representatives of stakers by design and can be held accountable by delegating/undelegating, slashing, j-ling and blacklisting. This is how LUNC blockchain is designed. By assigning validators in control of this wallet we still have vast control over their action by these tools.

With private individuals getting that role, there is not much you can do to them in case things go south.

2 Likes
53

I will only support the original - nominal owners of these resources , in this case TR. Therfore in my opinion (only my opinion).
Such a direct position of resignation, and the communication of the decision itself to the community, is the highest possible degree of verification, loyalty and dedication to Our cause.
I only trust that the community will rise to the task it takes on its shoulders and that the decision itself will be clear and understandable to the majority of Our community. As I see it, we have many excellent thinkers in our midst, which is why I myself do not intend to participate further in these discussions. Nevertheless, I will respect the will of the community.
I myself have enough resources to personally support those players I deem honest and trustworthy. I will also initiate actions on my own to develop our blockchain and, if anyone sees fit, I invite them to collaborate based on mutual respect and open to debate, in line with the spirit of the community, geared to bring about the desired results.

54

After your bs with the neblio deal any proposal with raider or vegas is one that is going to be an automatic no from me.

1 Like
55

I’m not sure what you mean by executing the swap/burn. Are you asking if we can code it for the community?

The proposal itself should not be an issue to begin with. This is something the community has to come to a consensus on. There’s too much back and forth with no progression.

57

Plus, the responsibilities of the signers will only last for the duration it takes to transfer all the funds from the multisig to the community pool.
Their job is just a procedural matter, once all funds have been moved to a terra classic denomination their job is done and their “signers” power becomes void.

It doesn’t make much sense to think about it too much, at least in the context of this proposal. As long as we chose individuals that we know are of good standing with the community and will get the job done it’s good enough.

4 Likes
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!

59

Yeah, if you can code this swap and burn or simply execute on behalf of community. Of course if proposal passes.

Thanks.

60

Perfect… move.

61

I’m not sure what BS you’re referring to. I’d like to make one thing clear as there seems to be a misunderstanding. The deal is between Neblio and TR, not Neblio and the community. Terra Rebels is a private org and does not represent the Luna Classic community and never will.

Unfortunately, the community does not have a say in what outside funding a private org secures for themselves and this is the reality of it. We are not owned by the community and never will be.

1 Like
62

A new Dev pool does not need to be controlled be Terra Rebels

1 Like
63

He mentions hiring an attorney up in his proposal, dunno how you missed that part.

2 Likes
64

Why cant we have collaboration on important matters like this. There is too much “I proposals”.Vegas et al with so much say need to be doxxed. We are not running a tuck shop. We are governing a multi billion dollar enterprise. Let’s treat it that way. Let’s not be self-serving. Enough is enough.

2 Likes
65

This is why the community needs a legal team to hold private organizations liable for their actions. Help me understand this: Aren’t TR members part of the LUNC community? They make proposals. There seems to be a disconnect here. Please clarify. I am Johnny come lately to a number of things.

66

The blockchain is open source, anybody can produce a code, submit a PR to TFL and have them merge the code onto main net. You can only hold individuals/private groups liable if you’re paying them. Since Terra Rebels is not being paid by the community, then we are not held liable to anything.

With that said, yes we are also part of the community as well. Anybody from TR can create a proposal just like anyone from the community.

2 Likes
67

If you read it carefully you’ll see the attorney is only suggested for the CURRENT MS owners. If they don’t do that then it defaults to Validators and is vague on that point.

Not sure how you missed that part.