Multi-signature wallet discussion

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

I am afraid pagination is not the only thing not working for your proposal. If that was the only problem it would still show in the whitelisted proposals. This looks more like an act of sabotage.

Vote here Terra Station

:rofl::rofl::rofl: I thought I am the only one who have hard time to understand this PR! I can’t even read it.

The only thing I see here is a rushed, not well written, unorganized… PR

Seems 2 proposal below is mutually exclusive, if both pass, I think the later one will be effective. So whoever agree with 10936, should go vote no for 10940.

10936 vs 10940

4 Likes

Makes you wonder if anyone actually reads them or blindly “follows” and “likes” what others say.
Depressing…

1 Like

At this stage, whoever voted No needs to switch their vote to “No with Veto” in order to make any difference

1 Like

10936 - Yes, with veto. :pray:

How can you ever say these assets may be free from any liability or claim? Because not a single WLUNA is free of it.

Every single one of it resides in a Wallet in Ethereum and someone holds the private key to it. No one of these key holders transferred their funds back to the chain. Why? Because they don’t want to. Why? Because it’s their right to do whatever they want with it.

You say: But some if them might have lost their keys.

I say: It’s simply impossible to find out which wallet owner lost their key or not. An attorney cannot change this situation.

You say: Maybe they abandoned their funds, that’s why it belongs to the community.

I say it’s simply not known whether the wallet owners abandoned their assets or not. Maybe Satoshi abandoned his BTC as well… Doesn’t mean that BTC belongs to someone else than him.

Even if they abandoned it: Who’s to say they don’t want it to move elsewhere at some time in the future?

Guys and girls: These WLUNA tokens are private property of the wallet owners. What is your hope the attorney is gonna say about that? Something different? What marxist attorney would that be?

One last point. We are talking about offchain assets here. How on earth can we be so arrogant to think that our little onchain proposal on TerraClassic affects these Ethereum wallets that hold those coins?

Ethereum is not subject to our governance.

This proposal only shows how greedy TR and the community have become.

1 Like

Hi @fragwuerdig ,

There have been a few individuals that have talked to one of the multi-wallet signers, and can confirm that they may be willing to transfer these assets to the community.

An attorney, to the best of their ability, and any services they contract with for investigation (where it is agreed upon), can conduct due diligence and offer a well researched legal opinion regarding the assets and any liabilities or claims that may exist. At least from historical research, it does appear that the funds did originate from the community pool:

I hope that helps a little bit, and that you have an awesome day today :slight_smile:

Hi @godoal (and all) ,

I have heard a pastor once wisely say, summing up some of the Bible’s teaching on the topic, that courage is rooted in conviction (it does not mean that you may not be afraid, but it means you push forward with something because the core of conviction moves you to believe it so strongly that you must act). For me, it is a conviction that (as I mentioned in an earlier post):

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, [it] 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.

At this point, it will require each of you (and any others you know of that feel similarly), if you also believe that this proposal is the best path forward to protect governance, provide an appropriate level of accountability, while also allowing a streamlined version of grants to help fund Layer 1, infrastructure, Terra Station, code and related non-code associated items.

Here is what is needed for those desiring to help (Action Steps):

  • You need to read both proposals, and then write to (email, on their website contact form, in discord or telegram) Validators (not spam, but actual write them). You should focus your communication to those in the “Not Voted Tab” or “Yes” tab of the other proposal (10940). Please be courteous, ask them to support the proposal associated with this proposal (10936) by voting “No” or “No With Veto” on the other proposal (10940).

    • It is important that the validator be allowed to make their final decision based on what they believe is the best for their delegates, with the input of their delegates, and for the Terra v1 governance community as a whole. In other words, please feel free to make your case, be prepared to answer any questions if they ask, but please affirm that you respect their ultimate decision.

    • The email addresses are listed in the voting sections for both proposals, and when you click on the validator link at the bottom of the voting section for a proposal, many have a “Terra Validators” button, click that, and it will give you more information such as website, discord, telegram, and social media sites).

    • Stress that at this point, if they are supportive of proposal 10936, that they will also need to vote “No” to proposal 10940. And please thank them for their consideration.

    • If they have not voted for this proposal 10936 (the proposal associated with this proposal discussion) yet, then:

    • That does not mean that individuals are not important, and if you can communicate with individuals (or that is what you feel most comfortable with), then by all means do that, but we have a limited window of time (the other proposal closes voting on 11/28/2022 at 9:09pm UTC).

  • This is why it is a little awkward having two opposing proposals at the same time. However, the good part is that it gives governance the option between both proposals.

    • In order for this proposal, proposal 10936 to carry, and to take effect, it will mean the other proposal, proposal 10940, will need to have “No” + “No With Veto” be greater than “Yes”, or that “No With Veto” is greater than, or equal to, 33.4% when the vote closes. You can confirm this formula for voting in the tallying documentation.

Thank you for those of you who choose to participate in this way, in a courteous manner, and outlining the merits of why you believe this proposal, rather than the other, would serve this system best, and protect governance.


Current Proposal Open For Voting - Proposal 10936:

Note:

  • There is an apparent problem in Terra Station’s pagination. Update: A few days ago a new proposal pushed proposal 10936 off the visible area both in the white list section and in the “voting” tab. However, another new proposal has now reconfigured things, so now proposal 10936 shows on page 2 of both the white list, and in the “voting” tab (click through page on bottom right side in Terra Station). You can also 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

I think we need to be careful regarding this proposal.
I don’t think we properly need, just in case of emergency we can adopt to leave to our parents…

Wait, i don’t think that have nothing to share with it.

Everyone do what they want to do. Signature got be one for me, individual.

In case of decision more vote equival to one sign: Terra

It is not the first time it happens. Once before there weren’t 2 pages. So that time it was not pagination problems

You are correct that it is not just a pagination issue. According to the original developer who put in the pull request there was also a query issue as well. The original pull request that dealt with pagination was merged a few days before this proposal was put into the system (prior to that pull request it was set to scroll). Currently it is dropping one proposal between pagination results, and the formatting for the whitelist page is off. For instance, as of right now, it is proposal 10944 that is completely hidden, since someone else added a new proposal and it shifted the query results. The issue has been raised as a bug, and the original developer also has put in a pull request for a fix.


Current Proposal Open For Voting - Proposal 10936:

Note:

  • For those wishing to further help proposal 10936 at this point, please see here for action steps you can take, while staying on the merits, and being courteous)(See the Action Steps section):

  • There is an apparent problem in Terra Station’s pagination and a query issue. The proposal is currently now listed on page 2 of both the white list, and in the “voting” tab (click through page on bottom right side in Terra Station). You can also 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

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope you have a great day today :slight_smile:

Note:

1 Like

I really want to thank each of you for the time you spent in reading, considering, conversations, and engaging, in a courteous manner, with individuals and with validators. Thank You SO Much.

Unfortunately, the issue is not over since it appears a new proposal (10967), by the same proposal author as 10940, dealing with the same issue, and adjusting certain aspects of proposal 10940 has been re-posted.

I leave you with the same thoughts, that are still true of the newly posted v4 proposal (10967) by the same author, that I mentioned before (and then ask for you to engage once again to help protect the proposal in this discussion thread, proposal 10936, which has now passed)(Please see the Action Items highlighted section below):

I have heard a pastor once wisely say, summing up some of the Bible’s teaching on the topic, that courage is rooted in conviction (it does not mean that you may not be afraid, but it means you push forward with something because the core of conviction moves you to believe it so strongly that you must act). For me, it is a conviction that (as I mentioned in an earlier post):

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, [it] 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.

At this point, it will require each of you (and any others you know of that feel similarly), if you also believe that this proposal is the best path forward to protect governance, provide an appropriate level of accountability, while also allowing a streamlined version of grants to help fund Layer 1, infrastructure, Terra Station, code and related non-code associated items.

Here is what is needed for those desiring to help (Action Steps):

  • You need to read this proposal, and the newly posted proposal from the other proposal author, and then write to (email, on their website contact form, in discord or telegram) Validators (not spam, but actual write them). You should focus your communication to those in the “No” tab of the v3 of other proposal that has closed and not passed (10940), and those in the “Yes” tab of the proposal for this current discussion thread which has passed already (10936). Please be courteous, ask them to support the proposal associated with this proposal (10936 ), which has already passed, by voting “No” or “No With Veto” on the now v4 proposal 10967.

    • It is important that the validator be allowed to make their final decision based on what they believe is the best for their delegates, with the input of their delegates, and for the Terra v1 governance community as a whole. In other words, please feel free to make your case, be prepared to answer any questions if they ask, but please affirm that you respect their ultimate decision.

    • The email addresses are listed in the voting sections for both proposals, and when you click on the validator link at the bottom of the voting section for a proposal, many have a “Terra Validators” button, click that, and it will give you more information such as website, discord, telegram, and social media sites).

    • Stress that at this point, if they are supportive of proposal 10936, that they will also need to vote “No” to proposal 10967. And please thank them for their consideration.

    • Include the direct link https://station.terra.money/proposal/10967 for their consideration, which they can use to vote against and track the proposal.

    • In addition, please engage with individuals courteously regarding the merits, and ask them if they may preserve this proposal that has passed 10936 by voting “No” or “No With Veto” on the other proposal v4 (proposal 10967).

Thank you again for those of you who choose to participate in this way, in a courteous manner, and outlining the merits of why you believe this proposal, rather than the other, would serve this system best, and protect governance.

I hope you have a wonderful day today :slight_smile:

2 Likes

What if I am not feeling courteous about a fake Rabbi trying to steal from this community? I think what we need to remind ourselves is that these proposals are being put up not to support DEVs or TR (they have distanced themselves from them) but solely for their own private gain. The sooner we find a real avenue of supporting those we need, the sooner this ends.

1 Like

so, now that 10936 is passed, what is the next step? have current signers agreed to clear and send the fund to community pool? if not, do you have already a new set of signers? will a new set of signers be proposed through governance? i think we need to be quick with this, it is the best way to counter 10967
thanks for your time

@aeuser999 please go ahead get the fund into community pool, that will protect the fund from attack by 10967

1 Like

@aeuser999 This is an open proposal to the entire community he 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.
That is why I am glad that you are here with us to discuss the details in an open manner.

                            LUNC <= LUNO => LOGO

hollow_earth_rotate_500_clr-1696728306