Multi-signature wallet discussion

I would have preferred the expediency of the selected allstar board originally proposed by Alex, but since that proposal died, this seems to be the best alternative. It’s obviously well written and very precise.

1 Like

Hi @raider7019 ,

One clarification though (although feel free to let me know if I misstated something, or any feedback - which I would welcome)… I have consistently heard the idea that validators are the key to the network, and that people can just coordinate with the validator for an install/update/upgrade. This is not the case however if that change, for the core or dependency of the core, would change the protocol (unless, possibly, it was reverting a change that had not been voted upon). That was the point of proposal 4159 for instance. While I guess it is true that a validator can install whatever they want on their machine, evidence collection from tendermint would bring about appropriate corrective action. But, if the validators did this without governance vote on a network wide scale, that would be problematic (at least it would be for me). In addition, although I disagreed with it (not necessarily in principle), particularly given the circumstances of the situation which in my mind is a conflict of interest for one particular person who has stated they own the full TR github org (at least from my point of view as a personal opinion), proposal 4940 did make the terra-rebels github org the canonical repository for the core repository for Terra v1 (unless, and until, Terra v1 governance chooses to change the source). I know too that those repositories that are from TFL (such as the core would be), as open-source, and under either Apache 2.0 or MIT licensing, would work as you mentioned, but I do believe there is at least one repository in the terra-rebels github org that is using copywrite as a default license (terra-operator)(rather than Apache 2.0 or MIT/ISC).

I just wanted to clarify, since I know you have upheld governance, mainly that since I have heard frequently the idea that the validators are those who secure the network (almost in a way that makes it sound like they are the ones who solely make the decision rather than governance), or are those who make the decision about releases for upgrades or installs (as opposed to updates of tested dependency packages that may not change the protocol by themselves), rather than governance. Both the white paper and documentation state that it is governance, by the virtue of their stake that the validators use, that secures the network in partnership with validators who do the same with their own personal stake and with the hardware itself (and particularly mentioned since this is a governance chain based upon the staked native mining coin LUNA v1 - unlike ETH where the governance is among the validator set).

I realize that it is probably off topic from the discussion above, even though somewhat related to an underlying principle, but I will say however that while I, like others, appreciate Terra Rebels (TR), and while I realize there are many different views sometimes within TR (as their would be in any organization or association of people), I think I can understand why people, including myself at times (both when I was inside TR, as well as outside TR), have concerns in making sure that Terra v1 governance community is the one who defines the vision and direction (with the help of those within the community, or when governance defines specific tasks, then on behalf of the community, but in a way that does not usurp, or eventually lead to usurping). And yet, from what I have seen, I believe there are those in TR that also want to see this. I also still realize, as you have pointed out, that TR does its best to help clarify its own official position (that has been clarified in internal voting via its own organizational governance). I am pretty sure that no matter what organization had grown up in the void, or what organization(s) may also grow up, this will always be an area (to protect its own governance process) that requires vigilance on the part of Terra v1 governance (while still being gracious, and fostering partnerships inside the community and outside of it, in that process).

I think for the purpose of this proposal though, as you have ably pointed out in your response, that each of us have wanted to provide a path that serves the overall Terra v1 governance community (recognizing that TR and other community groups, as well as validators, are a part of that overall community - while each retaining their own distinctives, their own business models if they are for-profit, and their own internal governances).

Just wanted to mention that for what it is worth. Let me know though areas of clarification, and I am definitely open to feedback (and/or correction).

I hope you are dong well today :slight_smile:

Hi @aeuser999,

Thanks for your reply.

For any development team to make changes to the way the core protocol functions, absolutely a governance vote is required. Fixing an emergency bug in the core protocol that does not change the way the protocol operates, but for example requires the expedient closing of a security flaw (as occurred with the dragonberry update) does not require a governance vote.

Whilst in theory, as you state, any validator can install whatever version of the terrad client that they want, I think we can see that our validators have been and are still absolutely acting as strong custodians of blockchain governance and consensus.

There is no reason for any of us to believe any group of our validators would act together to subvert governance or consensus as in the hypothetical scenario you described, but yes technically such a scenario is possible and this is a risk inherent to all proof of stake blockchains, not specifically to Terra Classic.

I believe those validators representing at least 66% of the voting power would insist on proper governance procedures being followed before accepting any new terrad release that changes the core protocol function.

Regarding ownership of the TR github organisation, I can confirm that TR complies fully with the github terms of service in that regard. Anyone can make a copy of the open-source repositories contained within it it at any time.

Terra Operator is new technology that has been developed within TR from scratch, none of the existing Terra Classic software components has any reliance on it, and this repository does not form a part of the official Terra Classic software distribution. We have the right to choose whatever licence terms we see fit for our own intellectual property.

Yes it is true that a community member submitted proposal 4940 that made our “classic” repo the canonical repo for the Terra Rebels terrad client. The point here is that another hypothetical software development team “Team X” could produce their own “Team X” version of the terrad client from their own repo (and that repo could also be established as canonical by another governance vote).

Absolutely I agree that the Terra Classic community is and must be the body that sets the vision and direction for the Terra Classic blockchain, via the governance system. TR as members of the community will participate in that process or may even initiate the discussion on a particular topic, but always the final decision on future direction will be made through the governance system.

I hope I have responded appropriately to your key points.

Have a great day A.E.!

I’m got you Vegas. Go ahead bro… Thank you very much.:m:

1 Like

Final Proposal Text:

SUMMARY:

  • Either current multi-signature wallet signers, or new multi-signature wallet signers, of the assets and wallet(s) that have been described as community assets, associated with wallet(s) such as the ethereum cross-chain multisig wallet [0x9538D438d506Fc426dB37fb83daC2a0752A02757], be tasked with:
    • Determining, through an attorney, if the assets are free from any liability or claims;

    • If assets are free from liabilities or claims, or for the assets that are free from liabilities or claims, to liquidate them, exchange them for on-chain denomination(s) coins, and transfer them to the community pool (at this point the multi-signature wallet signers task is done);

    • Suggestive ways for governance to track, vet, and provide accountability for community pool grants from assets associated with this proposal (so that governance can start funding layer 1 and associated blockchain maintenance and/or development, and related infrastructure)

RATIONAL:

Given the recent willingness of the current signers of a multi-signature wallet, who may be willing to transfer what has been described as community assets back to the community for specified purposes (including, but not necessarily limited to, the ethereum cross-chain multisig wallet [0x9538D438d506Fc426dB37fb83daC2a0752A02757]);

Given that distributing a significant amount of finances, and therefore the ability to use finances to consolidate influence over the chain and a very specific vision of its future, to a very small group of people, in a way that can easily bypass governance decisions, or accountability from governance - accountability that would be appropriate for fiduciary responsibility, particularly of a sum of money in the millions, on a governance-based chain; Recognizing that in a general sense that those who hold the majority of usable finances, for practical purposes, are those who really will determine the direction and outcome of a particular project, organization, or chain; and given that as a governance-based chain, these aspects around vision of the chain, and how finances are used to determine the fulfillment of that vision, are to be determined by the whole of governance; and

Given that the documentation outlines community spend proposals as the legitimate way to spend funds in the community pool and that the community pool is “a special fund designated for funding community projects”; Given that the Terra whitepaper for this chain states that “…the Terra Protocol offers strong incentives for users to join the network with an efficient fiscal spending regime, managed by a Treasury, where multiple stimulus programs compete for financing. That is, proposals from community participants will be vetted by the rest of the ecosystem…”; and given that the community pool spend proposal and discussion method has been the method for vetting and distributing grants in this chain with success, it is proposed:

PROPOSAL:

  • That this vote be a vote of affirmation of the will of the Terra v1 governance community to ask the multi-signature wallet signers to:

    • TASKS:
      • Hire an independent attorney to conduct a review to determine, to the best of the attorney’s ability, that the assets in the wallet(s) are free from liability or claims. The payment for the review of assets is to come from a Terra v1 community pool spend proposal that outlines proposed legal costs (preferably with one or more written quotes from an attorney), any reasonable reimbursements associated with this specific legal task, or any reimbursements that governance at the time of the community pool spend proposal deems appropriate, and any legal insurance for liability protection associated with this task. There are two options that can be taken regarding the Terra v1 assets used for the legal task:

        • Option 1: The community pool spend proposal to be deposited to an on-chain “legal wallet” (defined below) held in custody by, and administered by, the attorney for these specific expenditures; or

        • Option 2: The community pool spend proposal to be deposited to an on-chain “legal multi-signature wallet” (defined below) with the same signers as the off-chain multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal.

        Any remaining funds (if any) after the legal review has been completed, and reimbursements associated with the legal tasks have been made (if any), and distribution as governance outlined in the community spend proposal for the legal funds has been made (if any), is to be deposited back into the Terra v1 community pool. This transfer of any remaining funds in the “legal multi-signature wallet” (defined below), or “legal wallet” (defined below), shall happen no later than the other assets associated with this proposal are transferred in full, after conversion, to the community pool.

        • “LEGAL MULTI-SIGNATURE WALLET” / “LEGAL WALLET” DEFINED (ALL OTHER REFERENCES, UNLESS EXPLICIT, REFER TO THE MULTI-SIGNER WALLET(S) ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL):
          • For the purposes of this proposal, the “legal multi-signature wallet” or “legal wallet” shall be a wallet created as a result of a Terra v1 governance community pool spend proposal that is only for legal costs, or associated reimbursements, outlined in this proposal, or any other further expenses that governance agrees to in a proposal that passes. All other references to wallet(s), or multi-signature wallet(s), unless explicitly specified otherwise, are to be associated with assets, either on-chain or off-chain, regarding the current signers of a multi-signature wallet, who may be willing to transfer what has been described as community assets back to the community for specified purposes (including, but not necessarily limited to, the ethereum cross-chain multisig wallet [0x9538D438d506Fc426dB37fb83daC2a0752A02757]).
      • If the assets are considered free from liability or claims then to liquidate the assets through either a dark pool, over the counter, or if necessary, on market directly, and then convert them to on-chain assets for the Terra v1 blockchain, and send the assets to the Terra v1 community pool.

  • If the current multi-signature wallet signers are not willing to do the above, after further discussion, and a new multi-signature wallet, or new multi-signature signers for the current wallet(s), are required to do the above stated tasks, then:

    • NEW WALLET SIGNERS (IF REQUIRED):

      • 9 of the validators that are the greatest voting power shall be selected, with Vegas Validator being disqualified, for those willing to serve as signers, and moving to the next validator, until 9 validators are in agreement of accepting the responsibility. 7 of 9 signers will be required to initiate transactions for the wallet.

        • If there are still remaining signer slots to be filled, due to not enough validators being willing to do this task, then the remaining slots shall be filled through an election of Terra v1 governance community members. For purposes of the election, a candidate must show in the proposal description that they have staked coins on-chain by doxxing their Terra v1 wallet address that verifies there are staked coins (this will be the same wallet address that will be used for any “legal multi-signature wallet” signer or signer address of any on-chain wallets associated with the assets being transferred back to the Terra v1 governance community which this proposal outlines). The election shall be conducted through the Terra v1 governance system. The first number of candidate proposals that have passed, that meet the number of required remaining signer slots, and have given contact information to the “coordinator” (defined below), will be selected. It would be helpful for any election candidates to also outline their participation in the Terra v1 governance community. In addition the signer will have to sign a legal document and be verified using legal identification by an attorney (outlined in detail below). The details of the election, and any independent verification of it, and/or coordination of it, shall be outlined by the “coordinator” (defined below).

          • For the purposes of this proposal, the “coordinator” shall coordinate with validators, and the Terra v1 governance community, for the purpose of verifying potential validators willing to serve as signers, detailing specific times and dates regarding validator selection or community elections for signers, and otherwise coordinating, organizing, and communicating any Terra v1 community elections for those who may be willing to serve as signers if needed, independently verifying required documentation has been signed by the independent attorney for signer roles to be official, independently verifying required legal identification has been received by the appropriate attorney, independently verifying any legal matters pertaining to this task, reporting back to the Terra v1 governance community via the official proposal discussion platform that verification has been successful for all signers, and independently confirming to the current multi-signature wallet signers the persons to serve as signers for the purposes of any wallet(s) associated with this proposal (particularly for transfer of signer roles from current signers to new signers).

            • The “coordinator” shall be the person who opened the proposal discussion for this proposal in the official proposal discussion platform, or if he is not able to serve, or designates, then the co-signer or other signer listed in either the proposal discussion for this proposal (or also listed at the bottom of this proposal). The website address for the proposal discussion is listed at the bottom of this proposal.
    • LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF NEW SIGNERS TO ACCEPT OFFICIAL SIGNER ROLE (AND TASKS):

      • In order to accept responsibility as a signer, with the exception of being a signer on the “legal multi-signature wallet” (if that option is chosen), the person in question will sign a legal agreement to do what has been outlined above in the section TASKS (outlined for current signers of the multi-signature wallet), as well as any other pertaining aspects outlined in this proposal, in obtaining a legal review of assets in question, and then liquidate, convert to a Terra v1 denomination(s), and transfer all assets in question to the community pool. It is required under this proposal that the legal agreement will be drawn up by the (or an) independent attorney, and will include all provisions from this proposal. The legal agreement will be held on file with that attorney (or a legal service). The attorney referenced (or a legal service), will make their name as an attorney, or firm name, or service name (if a legal service), and address, publicly known for any legal requests that are made for legal purposes by another attorney. The attorney (or service name) and address shall be communicated back to the Terra v1 governance community, through the official proposal discussion system, after independent verification, by the “coordinator”.

      • No person shall serve as a signer, with the exception of being a signer on the “legal multi-signature wallet”, without having presented legal identification, with visual confirmation, to the attorney’s satisfaction, their names are signed to the legal document required for being a signer on the multi-signature wallet(s) (with the exception of the “legal multi-signature wallet” for the purposes outlined for the “legal multi-signature wallet”), and thereby having accepted the role of official signer. If a person has not signed the legal document, or does not meet the legal identity qualifications, they are thereby rejecting any further role or action with the multi-signature wallet or its assets (and shall be removed from the “legal multi-signature wallet” by the remaining signers). The independent attorney (or legal service) will provide a statement that is publicly posted that this identification and required signature process has been completed, and will be posted on the official proposal discussion forum by the “coordinator”.

    • INSURANCE OR INDEMNIFICATION:

      • Signers may use funds from the “legal wallet” at the attorney’s administration, or the “legal multi-signature wallet” (if that option was selected), to purchase legal insurance associated with their role as a signer. If reasonable insurance is not available, then reasonable legal costs for representation (solely on the basis of their position as a signer) regarding any claims against the signer may be applied for through a separate community spend proposal, to the degree that amount required is available in the community pool, and as long as it does does not arise as a result of abuse of their position as a signer (including violation of fiduciary responsibility), violation of the legal agreement they signed as part of their responsibility as a signer, or any aspect of negligence as part of their duty as a signer of the multi-signature wallet.
    • BOUND BY TERRA V1 GOVERNANCE (WHERE APPROPRIATE):

      • Those who fill active signer slots of the multi-signature wallet(s), or the “legal multi-signature wallet” (if that option was selected), as well as the attorney actively administering the “legal wallet” (if that option was selected), will be bound by Terra v1 governance proposals that pass which are associated with this overall task as outlined in this proposal - to the degree that the Terra v1 governance proposal is not illegal, would not put a person in a legally liable situation, or is not outside the jurisdiction of the Terra v1 governance community.
  • GOVERNANCE PROCESS FOR FUTURE GRANTS ASSOCIATED WITH ASSETS OUTLINED IN THIS PROPOSAL (MULTI-SIGNER ROLE IS DONE AT THIS POINT AND DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS SECTION):

    • This section is suggestive in the sense that it deals with community spend proposals, and once a community spend proposal has been passed by governance, the funds are transferred (whether this process is followed or not). But, this section gives steps that governance can use to track, vet, uphold a streamlined milestone project approach, and communicate expectations to a project applying for a grant, regarding the assets that are associated with this proposal, through the Terra v1 governance system.

    • That if the funds were transferred to the community pool from the multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal, each community spend proposal seeking a grant from these funds would need to specify in the official proposal discussion system:

      • That the potential grant recipients are: “seeking funds associated with assets transferred to the community as a part of proposal [this proposal number]” (if a proposal discussion, and/or proposal, does not include this notification, then it will be considered a grant proposal against general funds in the community pool, and not from these particular funds within the community pool).

      • Each segment of governance (individuals, Terra v1 Community groups, and the Foundation that has been established as part of proposal 8813), will be responsible to help educate their followers about terms of funding requirement minimum expectations from these assets, and make sure to engage with grant proposal discussions in order to help provide appropriate vetting of grant proposals by asking those seeking grant proposals appropriate questions and ask them to make appropriate documentation, financials, and plans available within their proposal discussions.

      • That grants sought, as a result of these assets associated with this proposal, should follow the following outline of milestones (as a minimum):

        • Projects where total funding sought is under $30,000 equivalent (no milestone requirements, but must make case for needs and should have some aspects of requirements and design complete to what would be appropriate for an angel investor presentation)

        • Projects where total funding sought would be equal to or greater than $30,000: It goes through 3 funding rounds based on minimum milestones (this means that the initial round seeking funding would be requested in order to complete milestone 1, which must be completed before seeking funding for milestone 2, etc.):

          • 1 ) requirements and design
          • 2 ) code complete and test ready (or appropriate project management milestone for any potential non-software development specific aspects toward Layer 1 software development or Infrastructure), and
          • 3 ) product tested, reworked, and shipped/accepted/deployed (with appropriate external best practice and security review)
        • That remaining funds available for grants, as part of the multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal, are to be stated by the proposer in their proposal discussion seeking a grant, as well as in their proposal. In order to determine the amount of assets available, the proposer will research all previous proposals which have passed that have requested funds as part of the multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal, and subtract those coins from the the amount of coins sent to the community pool from the multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal. The amount reported will be coins available before the proposer’s proposal is submitted, and will be accompanied by the original multi-signature wallet(s) transaction id(s) to the community pool, and a list of all proposals that had passed seeking grants using assets from the multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal (to be reviewed and checked by those partaking in the discussion, and stating their agreement or disagreement - along with their own research).

        • It is up to the proposer to fully outline all aspects of the milestone requirements regarding their project, and answer appropriate questions. If the proposer does not do this, governance should not vote to accept the grant proposal (either as an original proposal, or as a follow-up funding round based upon the appropriate milestone that has been completed, and reported, allowing for the proposer to seek funding for the next milestone for the project in question).

        • This proposal allows for the use of smart contract(s) to help accomplish the above, although does not necessarily require them.

        • While all parties attempt to seek to provide this level of accountability and vetting expectations of milestones, it is still recognized that an individual may create a proposal for a community pool spend proposal outside of these guidelines (however, it would be up to governance to provide the review required for the above minimum guidelines for those seeking grants through the community pool for the purposes of the funds associated with this proposal).

Proposal signed by: Vegas, A.E. (aeuser999)
Proposal co-signed by: Raider70 (raider7019)

For further proposal discussion see:

4 Likes

Note: The above final proposal language is being reviewed. It has included the merits we gained in discussion from each of you in this discussion - thank you. If it looks good to the reviewing signer, then the proposal should appear shortly. If not, we will make adjustments and post the final version text before posting the proposal.

2 Likes

The proposal is now live, thank you all for the important inputs.

5 Likes

The existing signers have said, over and over again, that they are offering to do one thing: hand the MS over to a new group of signers.

2 Likes

Meaning that while we don’t choose new signers, no proposal passed will have any effect.

one step at the time

1 Like

You are only delaying the process. We will get back to what originally should happen

1 Like

Hi @413x_45h4w , @wagnerdalcin that is because,

I suspect (and @Vegas please correct me if I’m wrong); now we vote for the design of WHAT/HOW the process will work. This implies there will be another vote to deal with the WHO/WHERE/WHEN so as to satisfy the requirement of the existing signers as you have just mentioned…
:metal:

1 Like

The Lunc coins I pledged now show up as 0 on Terra station and 0 when I look at the pledge institution. What’s the matter? It says “delegate canceled.” Can someone explain what happened? Maybe the lunc project ran away.

Hi @413x_45h4w ,

If that should be the case, this proposal also handles the situation of providing new signers as well (it handles both situations of existing signers, or new signers, being able to handle the limited task of legal review, and if clear, then converting to on-chain assets, and transferring the assets to the community pool.

I hope you are doing well today :slight_smile:

Hi @godoal ,

We did change the process a little bit in the final version from how it was in the original version that this proposal discussion opened with (based on the merits of discussion).

The current proposal provides for everything with the exception of the funds for legal review. It did not appear to be appropriate to use assets to pay for a legal review, where that review is suppose to determine if the very assets being used are clear of any liability or claims. So, for the actual funds used for an attorney, there will need to be a new community pool spend proposal that will be needed. However, the currently open proposal, would mean, if it should pass, that the Terra v1 governance community is agreeing to a community spend proposal for that purpose (it would be a technicality). However, the details in terms of the amount, and any particular expenses outside those explicitly listed in this proposal (if any), as well as the overall final proposal text of that community pool spend proposal, would be shaped by the proposal discussion for that proposal, and community feedback from that discussion. At that point the signers, while not on the multi-signature wallet, will have been able to gain (an) appropriate quote(s) for an appropriate attorney service for both the legal document they will need to sign (which incorporates the current proposal), as well as for the legal review process. The current proposal open right now outlines explicitly how a legal multi-signature wallet (or legal wallet if held in custody and administration by a reputable attorney) is to be setup and handled.

The only other aspect that may require proposals (although from community members that are staked) was that the final proposal allows for Terra v1 governance community elections if for some reason there are not 9 of the greatest voting power validators, with Vegas Validator disqualified, that it will move to community elections (with the coordination for the elections specified within the proposal).

The current proposal also makes sure that signers are legally identified in a way that protects the persons, but also provides legally binding provisions for any appropriate legal situations that could arise (particularly from a Terra v1 governance legal concern), and makes sure the signers have some type of appropriate legal insurance or protection, while also not shielding them in situations of abuse or negligence. It attempted to strike a balance while hitting at the heart of making sure a trustworthy process was outlined, that was legally responsible for all parties (signers as well as governance).

In addition it provides that signers, and the attorney, would be legally bound to any Terra v1 governance proposals that are applicable, as long as those proposals are not illegal, do not put a person in a legally liable situation, or are not outside of Terra v1 governmental jurisdiction.

The reason for the validators is actually as this person stated so well:

I think the only thing I would add is that the validators are fairly well known to the Terra v1 community, have a commitment of partnering with stakers to secure the network, have invested into this chain in terms of infrastructure, are themselves community members, and many have gone above and beyond in maintaining the network. They make very good candidates for a signer role for these reasons, for this specific purpose.

This proposal attempts to handle each and every situation that can be considered at this point, that we have been able to collectively see at least (and with the help of those of you hear during discussion), in a professional manner, while also protecting the process of governance and accountability. It also has the ability of providing suggestive means of enhancing the community pool spend proposal grant process by providing a streamline milestone approach for grants, from these particular assets, for funding necessary Layer 1, infrastructure, and other necessary costs to maintaining and developing the blockchain. However, it also makes sure that governance, not others, are those that direct the vision and direction of this blockchain, in partnership with others inside and outside the community (as it was envisioned from the beginning - as a governance based chain).

Thank you so much - I always enjoy reading your posts and your insights.

I hope you have an awesome day today :slight_smile:

1 Like

Current Proposal Open For Voting - Proposal 10936:

I agree wholeheartedly.

I will say that as far as I am concerned this is the one proposal that gets the funds from the much talked about multi-signature wallet to the community pool, and upholds the way governance was envisioned along the way. The other plans have gray areas, allow for consolidation of influence and vision using the finances of the wallet, and in at least one area, in one proposal, allows 1 person to hold a significant amount of money as an individual. That last part is concerning no matter the person (myself included). As a financial process, is not wise to allow one person to individually manage and have sole direct access to a significant amount of assets, and would not be a financial model used in a professional setting.

My experience in organizational life has shown me that those proposals will lead to undermining governance, not enhancing it (and on a governance based chain like this one, it is governance that provides the accountability - but a situation like what I logically follow through in some of what I have read of other rough draft, proposal discussion, or publicly posted, proposals on this topic can easily undermine that process). I do not believe the other proposal discussions, or proposal(s) that I have read will be beneficial in the mid, or long term, (and if their is a violation of trust that leads to inappropriate handling of assets in the short run, than it will not be beneficial in the short run either) for this chain.

For everyone: For the above reason I ask that each of you consider the proposal above (if you do not feel the same, I can respect that), and if you recognize this as an important issue not only in appropriate procedure, but in protecting governance, then I ask you may consider voting for this proposal, encourage validators in a respectful manner to consider this proposal, and to encourage others to respectfully consider this proposal. Thank you for your consideration.

I hope you have a great day today @NFObinna :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Hi all. This all seems reasonable.
However,
Dumb question though, maybe?..

Could the community gain better consensus by taking ultra super uber baby steps on this whole process and break out this process/proposal into smaller pieces, starting with:
Extract the initial legal expert review part out into its own proposal…then vote that into execution, then once that review is completed, we go to the next phase of What To Do based on the information from the legal review…then have new proposals for next steps, etc?

This current proposal, though reasonable, might feel to many voters as though it asks the voter to agree to too much with too many unknowns surrounding it.

Sometimes you have shit or get off the pot, but sometimes it is Really worth drilling down and taking things step by step.

Hi @CAprotonInhibitor ,

Thank you for your question.

Proposal 10936, the proposal associated with this proposal discussion, is currently open for active voting, so it is no longer open for changes.

In reality this proposal is very compact in steps (even if the proposal itself is detailed):

  • If current signers will not agree, then selection of new signers
    • If selection of new signers, legal identification is confirmed by an attorney, and signing a legal document that includes the provisions of this proposal.
  • a community spend proposal would need to be opened that would be associated with legal costs (with appropriate legal quote(s) in terms of potential costs, and Terra v1 governance community discussion, feedback, and where appropriate the incorporation of merits of the discussion period)
  • current multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal, are reviewed, and if appropriate, liquidated, converted, and sent to the community pool to be used for grants (for items such as Layer 1 maintenance and development, infrastructure, and related, or associated, items). All remaining assets for legal costs would also be transferred back to the community pool. At this point the multi-signature wallet(s) associated with this proposal are done.

I think one of the concerns others may have, and that may, or may not, be at the heart of your question is that the current proposal, if it should pass, would affirm a community pool spend proposal for appropriate legal costs. Since there is not an actual monetary figure attached to this section of the proposal, that may leave some feeling concerned. However, by the time the legal community pool spend proposal is open for Terra v1 governance community discussion, it would include attorney quotes for the actual services outlined in the proposal, with an appropriate cushion. Any other costs for consideration as part of that community pool spend proposal, if any, would be open to discussion at that time as part of that proposal’s discussion period for Terra v1 governance community, and would go through the same governance discussion process this proposal has gone through, with merits being considered as part of a final proposal, and then open to governance vote. It is during this process that governance will have the ability to help shape what they consider appropriate in terms of those costs. It will however, still need to encapsulate the heart of what this proposal has outlined.

The reason for a community spend proposal for legal costs is that:

The current proposal provides for everything with the exception of the funds for legal review. It did not appear to be appropriate to use assets to pay for a legal review, where that review is suppose to determine if the very assets being used are clear of any liability or claims. So, for the actual funds used for an attorney, there will need to be a new community pool spend proposal that will be needed. However, the currently open proposal, would mean, if it should pass, that the Terra v1 governance community is agreeing to a community spend proposal for that purpose (it would be a technicality). However, the details in terms of the amount, and any particular expenses outside those explicitly listed in this proposal (if any), as well as the overall final proposal text of that community pool spend proposal, would be shaped by the proposal discussion for that proposal, and community feedback from that discussion. At that point the signers, while not on the multi-signature wallet, will have been able to gain (an) appropriate quote(s) for an appropriate attorney service for both the legal document they will need to sign (which incorporates the current proposal), as well as for the legal review process. The current proposal open right now outlines explicitly how a legal multi-signature wallet (or legal wallet if held in custody and administration by a reputable attorney) is to be setup and handled.

I think it is also good to mention that the proposal attempts to protect the legal aspects of both the signers, as well as the Terra v1 governance community, and does not shield signers in situations of abuse or negligence. It attempts to strike a balance while hitting at the heart of making sure a trustworthy process is outlined, that is legally responsible for all parties (signers as well as governance).

In addition, signers, as well as an attorney (if the option is selected to have an attorney hold funds in custody and administer them), are bound by Terra v1 governance proposals that would pertain (as long as the proposal is not illegal, would not put a person in a legally liable situation, or is not outside the jurisdiction of the Terra v1 governance community).

I hope that may answer your question, but please let us know if not too.

Thank you too for the suggestion as well.

I hope you have a great day today :slight_smile:


Current Proposal Open For Voting - Proposal 10936:

Yes… better than “v3” proposal.

Current Proposal Open For Voting - Proposal 10936:

Note:

  • There is an apparent problem in Terra Station’s pagination, and a new proposal pushed proposal 10936 off the visible area both in the white list section and in the voting section. You can use the direct link https://station.terra.money/proposal/10936 to vote and track the proposal results.
    • For a tutorial of how to connect Terra Station wallet to “classic” network (Terra v1) to be able to vote, click here