Vegas, as the coordinator mentioned in the proposal, has made contact with the person coordinating for the multi-signature wallet signers, and that they have signaled their intent to follow 10936 currently (although with the caveat of having new signers rather than doing the tasks outlined in the proposal themselves).
The next part of the process is to coordinate for new signers using the procedure the proposal has outlined (starting with the validators and going through the list from highest voting power to lowest voting power, with Vegas Validator excluded, for validators that have contact information, and are agreeing to the provisions outlined in the proposal, and then determining if the secondary process of elections would be needed for any remaining potential signers depending on number of validators agreeing).
The current step, in the process that the proposal outlined, which Vegas, as coordinator outlined by the proposal, is at, is the process of going through the list of validators, from highest voting power to lowest voting power, with Vegas Validator excluded, to coordinate for new signers (with the process outlined in the proposal text). If there are not enough validators to serve, then it will move to the secondary process for new signers by election.
The legal counsel step is after this point, however Vegas may, as coordinator, independently reach out to attorneys for quotes to provide cost estimates for the upcoming community pool spend proposal for legal costs directly dealing with this topic, insurance, and any other potential costs that this proposal provided for - these would be refined in the proposal discussion for that community pool spend proposal (that proposal was outlined in this proposal, mainly for legal costs).
Proposal 10936 outlines that there shall be 9 signers if new signers are required, of which 7 of 9 would be required for signing.
The timeline is not fixed - it happens as steps are able to be accomplished. However, we will communicate back progress as significant steps are accomplished, and outline which step is next in the process.
I hope that helps a little bit, and that you have a great day today
You have to be fully transparent to actually implement the proposal otherwise it could be challenged legally - you know that, too many VEGAS here⌠It wasnât supposed to be managing directors with only 9 signatories. Can I choose who I like? After I get along with them, who and what should sign, otherwise I will choose someone who suits me. Who chooses them and on what basis? VEGAS? Voting power or wealth of the wallet? They are supposed to be independent and they are already dependent and this is supposed to be a vote? Who will take more?
Vegas wanted to pass along that the current multi-signature wallet signers have confirmed from their end that the assets were derived from the Terra v1 community pool in the following proposals:
proposals 148, 149, and 153 (all are related - curve pool liquidity):
This does not negate the need for the attorneyâs legal opinion, nor any research that the attorney, or the new signers, would require or request. The attorneyâs legal opinion is part and parcel of the proposal (and will only be as good as the research concerning the assets that undergird the circumstances surrounding the assets that the legal opinion relied upon in determining any outstanding claims or liabilities as part of its legal analysis).
However, this information provided by the current multi-signature wallet signers will be immensely helpful for the attorney, and for this process. Thank you to the current multi-signature wallet signers who helped to confirm this information.
Note: There was a question about new signer selection process, you can see the process in the final proposal text, which has passed as part of proposal 10936, here
Have all the multi-signers been contacted? What is the current status of this?
Vegas has not been able to recover his own money till now, how is he planning to execute this work? And when?
He has literally mentioned in his tweet that heâs having a kid right now. I donât expect him to get back to work in the next 2-3 months if that is the case. I may be mistaken and he is working on this right now.
What I wanna understand is that when you know who the signers are, when you know who the multi-signers need to be, and when you know how to recover it, then what is the hold up?
Why donât you contact TGF or Binance and ask them to give you signers? TGF is not Ed. Itâs an organization. They can give you signers very easily. Anyone can give you signers. I can give you signers. Even I am more doxxed than Vegas and whoever you are mentioning as signers.
Over there someone called Mr. Chow is removing funds from a multi-sig wallet in which Vegas is a signer and Vegas himself is not getting signers for this multi-sig wallet? If you had told Mr. Chow, he would have arranged everything by now
It is not my intention to antagonize you. You are aware that I had the multi-sig wallet in my proposal and @RabbiJebediah has made 4 iterations of his plan and he was about the find signers and finish the plan. I removed it from my plan and Rabbi also did not move because Vegas came and told us explicitly that he is moving with it.
Then the entire fiasco (with TR) happened, Vegas stopped the validator, and then he tweeted that he will leave the community after delivering the wallet. That doesnât mean anything - there is no timeline for this. That could happen after 50 years also when he is 80 years old. I am hardly concerned with him leaving the community, and more concerned with the wallet.
What is the requirement of doing this free social work? Why canât you just take 1% and get this done faster? Itâs better to give Alex 1% and get this done, rather than having to wait for it until CP dries up.
We have stopped the props (mentioned above) and fighting on other channels for CP money while Vegas is dealing with his own problems. How can you sit on a proposal which has passed? Why do you not take some commission (1-2%) and just get this done?
Happy new year to you too!
I am not going to pretend I understand all the implications in relation to potential liabilities - but there is a way to deal with the uncertainty of liabiliites.
Lock these funds by staking them as LUNC. Donât make them available for use through the community pool, only make the staking profits available in the pool. We have an ongoing income for dev and retain the ability to react to liabilities. I know I have put the idea forward prior so forgive the repetition but it would also help navigate the liability situation. Use it, but donât spend it.
Vegas is committed to carry out his role as coordinator, from the proposal (10936), which has passed governance (the proposal also does outline who can serve as coordinator if he should not be able, or if he should choose to delegate the role - so there should be no concern on the role of coordinator in being able to be carried out, so the proposal can be carried to completion).
Vegas is discussing the possibility of serving as signers with those the proposal outlined as the first in line of potential new signers for the multi-signature wallet, and following the proposals steps. He has reached out to a first group of highest voting-power validators to ask/discuss the possibility of being a signer. Here is what the proposal outlined/outlines in part in regards to signer selection:
Progress is moving along, but it will take some time as each step in the proposal is followed (which would have been true of most of the other proposals that had open proposal discussions as well).
We will also make sure to pass along updates via this proposal discussion thread as new milestones are finished in the process, and report the next step in the process from the proposal, until the process is completed.
I hope that helps a little bit, and that you are having a great day today
Note: There was a question about new signer selection process, you can see the process in the final proposal text, which has passed as part of proposal 10936, here
There was a proposal already being approved on Terra Luna 2.0 when you guys were planning this? Were you aware about that? @RabbiJebediah were you aware about this? I can see you saw the Twitter post but weâre you aware about this?
@aeuser999 you got a proposal passed on Terra Luna Classic when the wallet originally belonged to the Luna 2.0 network? Were you trying to slyly whack their money?
Please clarify this because you have misled the community into voting for this proposal and now you have put us in direct risk of litigation against us. Do you understand the implications of this if TFL decided to move legally? They are not a community, they are a company.
You made us (the ENTIRE COMMUNITY) party to a crime?
No wonder everyone moved away from being signers. Now we are getting to know. But shouldnât these details have been revealed to the community before this happened?
Now what are you gonna do? Forget that this was a bad dream? And youâre gonna pay 2 million dollars to the CP right now?
At this point of time, your actions are harmful to the community. Either drop this and we will take care of it, or tell us clearly what you are planning to do.
Mr. Chow and StableJim. Is this is a coincidence? Or everyone is running away with our money, you guys are associated to all these people, and still you donât know whatâs happening?
P.S. donât come back with some links and stuff. That wonât cut it right now. All that is over. Please tell us the complete truth, or donât come back at all.
The proposal (10936) associated with this proposal discussion was raised in light that assets were potentially available to the Terra v1 governance community. In addition, the person that is representing the multi-signature wallet signers has confirmed, for their part, the source of those assets, as listed in the Update #2. The proposal provides for legal review of the assets. In regards to Terra governance, it only has jurisdiction for the chain the governance applies to, otherwise it is beyond its jurisdiction (for instance Terra v2 proposal 349 passed - however TFL did not implement it; it was later implemented on Terra v1 as proposal 10950 [the same would be true if Terra v1 passed a proposal that deals with the operation or governance of Terra v2âs chain]).
The wallet is multi-signature, so it should not matter if one person, as one signer among many required to sign for approval of a wallet transaction from the Multi-signature wallet, may have had issues with receiving individual airdrops to their own individual wallet. That should not have any bearing on the assets that are part of the multi-signature wallet. However, if it should, the legal review at that time is designed to alert the new signers, and the governance community, of any issues, from a legal perspective, that may have bearing in determining if the assets have any outstanding claims or legal liabilities.
I hope that helps out a little bit, and that you have a great day
Note: There was a question about new signer selection process, you can see the process in the final proposal text, which has passed as part of proposal 10936, here