Multi-signature wallet discussion

Governance & Proposals
163

Hi @arunadaybasu ,

I am not sure how following through on this proposal, which has passed governance, and which looks to determine if the assets have any outstanding claims or legal liabilities through a legal review, amounts to being a bad actor. The steps (minus any coordination directly outlined in the proposal) pertaining directly to the wallet will come from the new signers, and the proposal outlined the process for selection of new signers (which is the current step Vegas is coordinating toward) - mentioned here and in the proposal text itself - here.

Vegas, as the person the proposal outlined as coordinator, is stepping through each step of the proposal as coordinator (and we have reported the current step the proposal is at, and have made the commitment to keep the community up to date as a step is finished and the next step in the proposal outline is started).

I do hear though that you feel concerned about the assets - which is the reason for a legal review for any outstanding claims or legal liabilities.

I hope that helps, and that you have a great day today :slight_smile:

Current Active Updates:

1 Like
165

Ever since the multiple scam proposals from the fake Rabbi sock puppet for either TR or a validator it has been obvious there is a bunch of people playing to enrich themselves personally rather than working for the good of lunc. The universe has a way of balancing out.

167

Hi @arunadaybasu ,

I am not sure what more to say, other than your characterization is unfounded (if you are not able to communicate constructively, I will need to ask a moderator to review your comments).

That said, and in a good faith attempt to further answer your question: To say that someone who received LUNA v2 coins in an airdrop back in May (according to the post TFL has put out on their twitter account with a link in that post to this article here), and this person’s refusal to return the Terra v2 coins (according to the post, due to legal tax concerns for this particular person), automatically makes the mutli-signature wallet tainted, and anyone who is associated with this proposal, criminally liable, or a criminal in fact, jumps straight to unfounded conclusions, and is not appropriate.

The situation, according to TFL’s post, has been something that has been a reality since May. It is just that TFL has happened to mention it now, since according to their twitter post, they wanted the community to be aware (and was the first time I, and I am sure many others, had heard of it). The situation has nothing to do with the person’s role as a signer of the Multi-signature wallet (although the Terra v2 airdrop to this person’s individual Terra v2 account happened as a mistake due to TFL’s overlooking of the Multi-signature wallet). This airdrop is on a completely different chain. The situation also has nothing to do with the Multi-signature wallet, nor Terra v1 governance, that I can tell.

It does appear to involve the person’s individual Terra v2 account (which carries the same number as their Terra v1 account), on the basis of their individual Terra v1 account being associated at that time, it appears, as one signer account among the other signer accounts on the on-chain Terra v1 Multi-signature wallet. That Multi-signature Terra v1 wallet was originally used, it appears from the proposal discussions in Update #2, to receive the assets before transferring them off-chain to accomplish what those proposals outlined that governance wanted those signers to do on their behalf (associated with the off-chain ETH wallet/smart contract). Even though it appears that, at least at the time of the airdrop in May, that the particular Terra v1 individual account of the person in question (which although is the same account number, is a different Terra v2 account), and was only associated with the Multi-signature wallet through their individual Terra v1 account, it also appears that the Terra v1 Multi-signature wallet itself is setup so that it can not be blocked by any one signer.

All of the above is not stated as a defense, although I will say I do not believe it serves anyone well to jump to conclusions. That said, to my knowledge the person in question is not the person coordinating for the wallet.

As to any legal issues, the legal portion of the proposal, that directs that the assets be reviewed by a competent attorney, is intended to address concerns with the assets from a legal liability and outstanding claims perspective.

Outside of that, what I know, for the most part, is reported in the updates.

I hope that helps a little further, and that you are doing well today :slight_smile:

Current Active Updates:

1 Like
168

I’m giving you a constructive feedback like you wanted.

When you are done with the legal review, please ratify it on a registered court paper bought from the lower/sessions court (in your jurisdiction) and ask the lawyer to sign all the pages at the bottom (horizontally) and at one of the sides (vertically). Scan and post a copy of that here in this thread whenever you wish.

You may remove the name of the lawyer and also the jurisdiction (local area) if you wish.

We just need to see the content and the signatures.

Have a nice day.

169

Any news?
When back to CP?

170

Hi @NN78 ,

I am sorry for my late reply. Here is the most recent status:

Vegas, as the person the proposal lists as coordinator, is working through the list of validators (since that is who the proposal lists first as potential new wallet signers, and lists community elections if not all the signers are filled from some within the active validator list based on highest voting power). He has made good progress on communication, but there is still more communication that needs to happen before that part of this particular step is complete. So, the current updates listed … [in this discussion for the proposal is still the most current]. But, work is steadily, but surely, plodding forward on it.

I hope you are having a great day today :slight_smile:

Current Active Updates:

1 Like
171

@aeuser999 @Vegas thank you for your work to date.

Might I enquire as to the hold up? The proposal passed many months ago, yet we don’t seem to be beyond the ask validator phase.

Presumably by now validators have been able to make up their minds on whether they want to signatories or not and by extension whether community representation is required.

2 Likes
175

Proposal 10936 - Update 3:

If you are a validator and you did not get a formal invitation emailed to your validator operator address: to serve as a potential new signer on the multi-signature wallet, or as an alternate, please either respond back in this thread, to Vegas, or to myself directly (and we will send you a formal invitation). You would need to respond by Feb. 15th 2023. It may require validation that you operate the validator in question (for instance: appending a short validation code to your moniker for a short period of time, etc.). Your response back would be counted for the purposes of the deadline date.

Update:
Vegas, as the person the proposal outlines as coordinator, has set a date of Feb. 15th 2023 for validators to indicate their willingness to serve. The highest 9 validators, by voting power, will be selected, with others serving as alternates (in case one of the 9 validators do not qualify according to the proposal text).

All validators that were able to be confirmed via a profile here or here, and were above 0% voting power (although please let us know if your validator is 0% and you would like to be considered, and have not already let us know your answer), and/or had some fairly known public verification with a profile (which most likely would still require a verification method) were sent a formal invitation. If your validator was not, and you are interested in serving, please respond back by Feb 15th.

So far we have had some encouraging responses back - although we really would like to have as many responses as possible (so if you are a validator, please let us know your response one way or the other as to your willingness to serve).

I hope you are each doing well today :slight_smile:

Current Active Updates:

3 Likes
176

Today its ~3m $ assets. Any news? When back to CP?

1 Like
177

Hi AE.

Any update on this matter? It’s been 30 days since the last update.

3 Likes
178

@Vegas what else we needed today, validators?
I think this wallet is one of the most important issues for today, because of the CP not active growning.

2 Likes
179

some Updates: Regarding the (MS), we have managed to gain the support of some Validators. However, we are facing difficulties in finding new support, primarily due to understandable fear that has been amplified by certain influencers. The current proposal requires the participation of 9 Validators or members of the community , for safety. Currently, we have the support of 8 Validators, as one is apprehensive about the potential impact and the prevalent FUD surrounding the situation. Therefore, if any additional Validators wish to join, please contact me or AE, or leave a comment on the Discord channel: Discord.

We strongly encourage any community member who wants to support this proposal and willingly act as a signer to reach out to me or AE. The funds involved are transparent, originating from a community pool proposal, so there is no wrongdoing in sending them there. Additionally, we are currently in communication with the current owners who have assured me that they will honor this proposal.

1 Like
180

So in the event you manage to acquire the funds from the current owners, you’ll send all the money to the LUNC community pool?

181

Seems good.

100%