Multi-signature wallet discussion

Governance & Proposals
68

Hi @Nigel80sKid ,

Your welcome :slight_smile: . Thank you too for engaging with me, and sharing some of your thinking - I really appreciate it.

Just a few thoughts in response (although disregard if they are not helpful)…

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…

The community pool, until very recently, has not had much funds available since the crash in May. As of today the community pool, which has other coin denominations as well, has the equivalent of $183,974.74 LUNA v1 and $9,414.89 UST. The point of mentioning the 7 early grants through the community pool spend proposals was to point out that the community pool spend proposals (for grants that benefit Terra v1) has been both a method that was envisioned in the white paper, and has served the system well for the past 2 years. It has not been cumbersome. It also has dealt with similar projects to those that will most likely be raised for Layer 1 development in response to governance and maintenance (and associated infrastructure, tooling, and non-development but related aspects). In addition, the returned assets from the multi-signature wallet would provide grant funding beyond where the community pool assets are today, where the proposals for that funding, would most likely follow fairly close behind to help strengthen the blockchain.

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).

I have heard the “jumping through hoops” argument recently, but I can say that in all honesty it just does not resonate with me. Basically what was proposed in a different proposal discussion was to give very broad discretion, regarding a significant amount of finances, in a way that the financial influence could easily consolidate influence and relationships, which in turn could bypass the governance process (or significantly minimize it), could bypass broader accountability, where the broad discretion could exist perpetually (or until the funds were depleted), and consolidate it all to the few signers of one multi-signature wallet (even if that was not the intent for each of those proposed as signers). That is much different than a multi-signature wallet with a very specific task, particularly a task that is external to the chain, that governance has tasked the wallet signers with through a proposal that has passed, and where the signers are legally bound to complete that task.

In all honesty, at least as a personal observation, the grant process on this chain is a lot more streamlined when taken in comparison to other grant entities. The milestone outline proposed in this proposal discussion, which would attempt to provide a greater level of accountability, still is fairly responsive time wise. For instance compare the grant process on this chain with the traditional grant process:

On the intent of the signers of the multi-signature wallet: I would take a guess that after reading through the proposals and proposal discussions associated with proposals 148, 149, and 153 (if in fact these assets are from these proposals, which at least initially it appears they are) that the current signers of the multi-signature wallet(s) are maintaining the mandate that Terra v1 governance gave them to begin with (and will change their task if governance gives them a different mandate).

we should use these funds outside of this structure to our benefit. We are talking about millions on a billion dollar valued blockchain.

I can respect that others believe acting outside of the broader governance structure is the best way forward. I can say for myself personally, that using a structure that gives broad discretion to a small group of people will ultimately determine the vision and future of this chain (at least financially, influentially, and relationally). Since vision and decisions regarding the future of the chain are tasks of governance, I can in no way see how that will not undermine legitimate governance, and so is extremely concerning to me.

At the same time, I also thank you for your honest reflections, and for answering that question.

I enjoy reading your posts, and was thankful to get to read your thoughts. I really appreciate your taking time to engage on this important topic, and on the text associated with this proposal discussion, and to give the benefit of your honest thinking - which is really helpful.

Thank you so much, and I hope you have a great day today :slight_smile:

2 Likes
69

We don’t wish to have a dev pool for ourselves or to control anything at all.

70

Thanks for your timely response.I thought the community:

  1. governs the LUNC blockchain so one cannot make any change to it unless it is approved.
  2. There are proposal(s) submitted /to be submitted for the lUNC community to pay TR, hence the need to hold TR liable?
  3. With the Neblio deal, is there a risk of a conflict of interest between Neblio and the LUNC community?
  4. So main net is controlled by TFL. Can we become independent of TFL? If. yes, what needs to be done?
71

You are correct, if you’re staked, you have a vote on proposals. Validators are the ones that keep the chain running.

I understand that there are proposals to “fund TR” but we have taken the stance to turn down any and all funding from the $4.1m and from the community. Just because the community raises a proposal to fund TR doesn’t mean we need to accept it.

I have heard this argument about Neblio come up very often, but have heard naysayers come up with a valid reason why it would be considered as conflict of interest given that Terra Rebels is a private org and does not represent the Luna Classic community. If you have not noticed by now, the Neblio deal had absolutely zero effect (aside of the division created by a bunch of people) on the blockchain. I’d like to hear your thoughts on why you think this is a conflict of interest.

As for becoming independent from TFL. All the community needs is funding to maintain the LCD/FCD end points. Anybody can host these end points and for clarity, the end points are NOT the keys to the blockchain. The keys to the blockchain are the validators.

72
  1. Yes, too much back and forth. In my humble opinion there are too many “I proposals”. Why cant there be collaboration on these proposals by all stakeholders?
73

The conflict of interest stems from the fact that Neblio:

  1. is a competitor to LUNC. To mention that that they are supporting TR to the large LUnC community is “cheap” advertisement for them,by potentially garnering the support of the community for their tokens. (The marketcap of Neblio Token is only $24,176,975)

  2. is mandating that TR cannot “get support/sponsorship from any other organization for a period of time”

  3. will give control to TR to do whatever they want with the second tranche of payment, What’s the reason for this clause?

74

Would be great to hear how the Nebilo deal negatively effected LUNC in any way in your opinion.

75

Why is it a conflict of interest when Terra Rebels does not represent the Luna Classic community? Have you read the prop we published to the public about our deal?

Here’s what we did with Neblio thus far.
1 twitter post announcing their support for Terra Rebels.
1 3 way AMA with binance, TR, and Neblio
1 AMA with neblio and TR.

At the end of the day, people are just going to have to accept the fact that Terra Rebels is a private organization that does not represent the Luna Classic community. If you want to attack someone, then attack YouTubers who are actively shilling multiple coins/blockchains while generating revenue off of shilling LUNC as well.

With that said, there is no conflict of interest. People are just painting it to be.

1 Like
76
  • How did it affect the governance?
  • Did any validator gain decisive control of the chain?
  • Were there any proposals passed that would benefit NEBILO?
  • were any Community owned funds stolen as a result of this sponsorship?
  • Was any wallet of LUNC holder drained of funds, hacked etc as a result of this deal?
  • did you see any member of NEBILO gain a major position in LUNC movement?
  • Were any of NEBILOs team awarded any funds by LUNC community?

Do you have any examples of wrongdoing or is it just an attempt to FUD since you dislike the author of this proposal?

77

You don’t know unless they disclose them, it’s ridiculous to blindly believe.

78

“At the end of the day, people are just going to have to accept the fact that Terra Rebels is a private organization that does not represent the Luna Classic community”.

In the same token TR has to recognize that they cannot do anything to the blockchain without the approval of the community.

Where do we strike the balance?

As I see it :

  • TR is just a replica of TFL in terms of functions
  • TR has no real funding at this time. TFL was able to raise millions of dollars from investment firms
  • TR volunteered themselves to take control of the LUNC blockchain. The community overwhelmingly supported it. Could the community have rejected TR?
  • Validators determine to a large extent what proposals are passed.
  • TR with the aid of sponsors can stake enormous amounts of money to control the governance of the LUNC blockchain
  • The community does not like the lack of transparency of some TR members- -No one is questioning the credibility of TR. We just want to build TRUST.
  • Key TR members should be doxxed and KYC compliant.
  • The Roles of key TR members need to be established
  • There has to be a CEO of TR- No one seems to be up to the task
  • TR needs (i) a Lead Developer (ii) a Senior Developer
  • Right now I see some TR members behaving as if they are too big for their britches.- No offence intended.

As an investor I am profoundly indebted to the initiative of TR. I just want to see clear leadership. It’s lacking in my humble opinion.

Case in point :TR should be reaching out to the investors to reduce the fear and uncertainty with the recent SBK FTX fiasco.

The bottom line: Developers(TR), validators and the community at large must have the main common goal. REBUILD THE LUNC ECOSYSTEM TO MAKE IT BIGGER AND BETTER.

2 Likes
79

  1. I’m sorry if you think TR is a replica of TFL, but unfortunately we do not operate the same as TFL. We do not have nearly as much tools and money as they do. In fact, most of us are broke.

  2. TR volunteered to improve the blockchain (again, the blockchain is open source) we did not volunteer to take control of the LUNC blockchain. This is false, we took initiative to start rebuilding. Whether if the community rejects TR or not, we’re still going to contribute to the blockchain. If you don’t want improvements to the blockchain, then vote no.

  3. Correct, Validators still run the blockchain.

  4. What is stopping a big whale group of buying up the supply, staking it, and voting to the way they want? Using this argument is moot. Please think about the actual cost to buy up the entire supply and staking it. Buying up the supply and controlling the chain doesn’t make sense given the current state of the blockchain. You’ll just be crushing your own investment if you’re acting maliciously.

  5. Please refer to our roadmap. Everything on our roadmap has been delivered till date. What lack of transparency are you referring to? Again, we are a private org. We don’t HAVE to be as transparent as we have been with the community.

  6. Why should key TR members be doxxed again? Are you paying us? We’re on nobody’s payroll.

  7. How about let TR run TR. I’m sure we know what we’re doing and we operate just fine with each other.

  8. We dissolved our steering group and are completely decentralized. There is not a single persons in charge of TR and that has been much better as far as communications and operations goes. Thank you for your opinion.

  9. Refer to reply #8

  10. Thanks for your opinion. We are not changing our operations as nothing is wrong with the way we operate with each other as a private entity that is self funded and on nobody’s payroll. Unfortunately, you don’t have a say in what we do, but we appreciate your input.

Let me make this clear. We do not want to take the leadership role. We have repeatedly said that we do not want the leadership role.

It is not TR’s job to address what happened to FTX. Please DYOR as this is not private news. Our focus is improving the blockchain and as I see it, FTX’s collapse has nothing to do with Luna Classic blockchain.

5 Likes
80

yeah, I don’t care if you guys want a little funding i have no problem with that. What i care about was the no partnerships/sponsorships for 6 months. I especially care about how it was put up for vote on discord NOT Terra.station.

Even if TR is not owned by the community, the chain and the code is which means if you guys want success then you are to held accountable by the community. Despite how much people love to forget that but lunc was never meant to be centralized. If your closed deal actions impact the chain and its performance like the neblio deal did with all of its shadiness and red flags which tanked shortly after the multiple canceled AMA’s and multiple fake Ceos who couldnt even answer a simple question like “what product does your company produce”. Then there should be a vote.

TR like to think that you own this and are above accountability and governance but you’re not and I’m excited for the day that comes to light.

Personally I have no problem with you but vegas and raider are burned. They have shown they are untrustworthy (not forgetting lying about binance setting up the lunc/neblio deal) and because they have shown they cant be trusted any and all proposals from them are a no from me.

81

Please educate yourselves on how private organizations work. I repeat this again, what makes you think you have a word on what type of outside funding we receive when we do not represent the Luna Classic community and this does not affect the blockchain in any manner?

The proposal was put up on discord to gauge sentiment and to be transparent. Seeing that this deal did not affect luna classic or the community in a negative way, I guess this further proves my point? In fact, it has benefitted the community/blockchain if you take the time to read the distribution of the funds.

TR does not like to think anything you’re claiming. We engage with the community members because we are also part of the community. We have delivered everything on our roadmap completely free. If us seeking outside funding rather than asking the community for funding further proves that we don’t want to take from the community, does this mean we are doing anything malicious or being bad actors?

We have stated repeatedly for people/groups to go do their part to help the chain and add value to it, but some how it comes back to TR “trying to control the chain” when we can’t even do anything to the chain without the approval of the community.

This is my last message on this topic. This argument is pretty much moot at this point.

3 Likes
82

Typical, trying to shut down a very necessary conversation with “this is my last message on this topic” very centralized perspective you’re taking on the matter “were a private business, we do what we want we dont have to consult you regardless if it directly impacts you or not”. Like it or not the chain belongs to the community, if you choose to manage the chain, then you answer and are held accountable to the community.

The reality is that after the neblio deal was announced there was two weeks of panic selling with neblio being the key word around those conversations and decisions. There was also a decrease of holders and the price halved. This stemmed from the lack of transparency from neblio as well as their incompetence. This wasn’t helped at all by the “proposal” that Vegas and Raider put up ensuring that there would be no other partnerships or sponsorships for 6 months.

You really cant say it had no effect on the performance of the chain which was in the green right up until the deal was announced and I mean right up to the very half hour the deal was announced.

You may believe that you can just interact with millions of dollars all while considering yourself a private organization and be above accountability or reproach, I promise you the justice system and law makers do not view it that way. Your actions effect the chain and are tied to millions therefore your actions WILL come under scrutiny and you are expected to provide legitimate answers.

I love how you guys keep brining up money. People including TR seem to have forgotten that your survival project being successful will get your team more money than you could ever spend in your life. You guys keep wanting a high five for doing things for “free” but we all know time is money and this is an investment that will pay off for you guys one way or another. its not an if, its a when.

Regardless, a majority (myself included) want to fund you guys but they want it done in a transparent way in which there is a chain of custody of funds as well as checks and balances in how the funds are appropriated. Nobody here is saying you guys don’t deserve pay. in fact a majority of the community would have much more respect for you guys if you had asked the community directly. There would have been a massive campaign and you guys would have had guaranteed funds. Instead you made a backdoor deal which directly impacted the chain negatively in which the leadership was fake and/or couldn’t be properly identified nor pontificate their business model and financing plan.

Everyone likes to kiss your feet because you guys are writing code but in reality this chain would be nothing but lines on a screen if it were not for the users utilizing the code and fueling the ecosystem with their liquidity and trades. If yall hadn’t come along it is almost guaranteed someone else would have.

Read this, dont read this… im not really concerned. As I said I’m not against you, but observations have been noted, red flags posted and alarm bells raised around certain members on the TR team.

In the future big businessman humble yourself.

5 Likes
83

The conversation can continue with me if you wish.

We do not choose to “manage the chain” as you describe it. That is the job of the community through the Terra Classic governance system. Any changes to the core protocol (layer 1 code) must go through governance. We are extremely happy that the chain now belongs to the community and would not have it any other way.

As @reXxTR said, Terra Rebels is a private organisation made up of a group of collaborating community members. We have the right to promote ourselves and find funding from any sources that we feel make sense for us.

The Neblio proposal that Vegas and I put up for TR internal voting cetainly does not ensure “there would be no other partnerships or sponsorships for 6 months”. It requires TR not to receive sponsorship from other blockchain/coin/token teams for that period of time. That is the TR team’s decision to make (which they did by voting for it) and in no way affects the Terra Classic blockchain or the Terra Classic community.

You conflate changes in the price of LUNC with the sponsorship we are receiving from Neblio - well you are of course entitled to that opinion, but that is all it is - your opinion. If certain segments of the community prefer to focus on negativity and hate then they must be prepared to accept the results of those activities which are far more likely to negatively affect the price in my opinion.

The code is open source and freely available to anyone to do with as they wish under the terms of the Apache 2.0 licence. As a result, any competent development team can do what we have had to do:

  • Clone the repo
  • Submit ideas for changes for governance appoval
  • Make code changes
  • Build a testnet and test the changes
  • Build a release and work with validator node operators to install it

After almost 6 months of free of charge voluntary work, and having delivered everything we said we would deliver, we now reserve the right to require payment for further efforts and we will try to find funding for that from any sources we feel are appropriate. We would prefer not to ask for any money from the community, and at the same time we of course welcome community donations that are made voluntarily to us.

We also welcome other development teams to come to this ecosystem and work for the benefit of the Terra Classic community and share the burden with TR.

5 Likes
84

Thank you for your response. I believe we should start putting procedures in place to account for situations like this one.

What happens next time we find another 4 million? Or when we have an X amount of money coming in. There will always be emergencies. Why not address the issue here?

I know your proposal is a one off and only applies to this instance but, if we are going to address the issue, we might as well address it here. Thank you for you reply.

85

I discovered that I have been wrong all along.

I finally understand the general concept of TR and how it relates to the community. TR is a part of the community but the most active part.

There is a misconception in the community that TR is the leadership. That needs to be addressed. TR acts like leadership and have access to funds(i.e oracle pool) that no other community member has.

Also, the Roadmap is a TR roadmap and not a classic chain/terra roadmap right?

86

Yes, we are a part of the community and we have been very active and have made tangible deliverables to fullfil the promises we made to restore governance.

TR absolutely is not “the leadership” and we do not want to be. We do try to act as leaders through taking the initiative and delivering results.

However, TR most certainly does not have access to the Oracle Pool. Where on earth did you get that idea from? The Oracle Pool contains rewards that are paid to validators and delegators and distributions from it are governed only by the core protocol.

The only funds that TR currently has access to come from sponsorships, donations, revenue from dApps we create (currently the Moonshot app), and (once it becomes profitable) our validator.

2 Likes
87

And yes, the roadmap on our website is not the Terra Classic roadmap, it is a roadmap of activities that TR has completed and expects to be performing in the future, based on governance proposals that have passed or are in active discussion, and is subject to future governance and the availability of funding to perform the work.

2 Likes