Many here attack others. It is easy to attack others. But it is difficult to propose solutions. Nothing is achieved by attacking or inventing fallacies. It is achieved with common sense proposals (from a decentralized government and chain) even if they are not perfect. Someone proposed that we go back to 0.2%. And the question now is. Did it work? Not completely. Did 1.2% work? No, not as expected either. No one benefits from so much to-ing and fro-ing. We need a general plan, a frame of reference to structure all actions on a day-to-day basis in order to move towards the realization of the Master Plan previously outlined.
Vegas makes sense (the decentralization of funds). But it lacks details of how it would follow. Alexās and some of TRās proposals make āspeed logicā (they propose agility of action in an extremely centralized way) but lack a plan that allows the decentralization of actions and decisions. So we see many proposals, but lacking in details and common sense for a chain that claims to be decentralized.
We need a Master Plan that sets a concrete direction to be achieved in the short, medium and long term.
I suggested a sliding scale 0-1.2% right at the beginning
Thatās how the real world works
It would have been volume based to maintain healthy volume
As Max later did an article calling it Dynamic taxing
But what would I know
Everyone dreams of Wen Lamboā¦ some of us have been there done thatā¦ 3 Fezzaās later I see wideboys still trying to teach us how the corporate world worksā¦
The conversation gets boring after awhile
But I agree we need granular details on every aspect of each proposal to what the 4.16m is being used on and how everyone justifies their 5k per months
Time commitment
Key deliverables
I can go on and onā¦ but Iām falling asleep from all the drama
My dear friends, we must realize one thing. As long as this site is used to demonstrate its strength and support in the community, LUNAC will change its value to down and any attack will be successful. What changed everything and allowed for a rebirth was in May. Everyone knows what weāre talking about - one idea, one community, and high vibrations in love and mutual respect. Now - not the time for a big deal, many cryptos are in trouble, but it is time to show our strength - our unity. That could bring the LUNA - genesiss C back to $ 200 and even higher(donāt belives? Go away). Life is the art of choice - choose wisely.
Important actors are observing all of us. And what do we do? We fight for money, position, self-prestige.
To me, it seems that those who were excluded by the circle of the 9 are now complaining about decentralization.
This proposal has no sense at all, no offense Vegas. At the same time, the one which was posted by Alex a few days ago is far to be acceptable.
No with veto to both of them.
I wish you guys could all grow up, sit around a table, talk and find some decent solutions which will benefit everyone.
Just remember this: the way we behave now will show the markets the strength or the weakness of this community.
I wish too myself and I think We wishing toā¦ you guys, Could all grow up, sit around a table, talk and find some decent solutions which will benefit everyone, pleaseā¦
First, for a binding vote of this magnitude this proposal is way to broad and unfocused. Second, there is a short window of opportunity to get confidence back in this coin and to start things moving forward again, otherwise LUNC is just a meme-coin. If every spend from the community fund has to go to a full vote then opportunities will be lost and nothing will ever get accomplished and LUNC will wither and rot. Decentralization is great but micro-managing is not. It makes more sense to have nominations for individuals for a board and give that board a mandate and limits on scope and size of what they can and cannot do without a vote and then let them do their thing. Then items that are outside of that mandate can be voted on by the community.
If things donāt go through governance, I leave the community and sell all my Lunc. I already have centralization in my bank and the countryās government. I donāt see any plans to restore the blockchain. You can burn USTC and opt for the repeg by creating a poll of tokens that serve to maintain its stability. The other is to stay here forever burning Lunc and arguing.
At the state that your proposal is at the moment, i do believe it wont pass. Acctually it should not even been put to vote, its poorly developed and extremely generic. But I also believe that it can and should be improved. You can not treat all the assets same way and all the needs same way. Some flexibility might be good and important to the chain, for example, instead of treat all the assets same way we could share it in cotes as some already suggested(Rbb786). So, man, rewrite this after collect the opinion of people and then lets vote it.
Considero muito seu esforƧo pela comunidade e desejo que cheguemos a um consenso.
Split the 4.16 in 25% funding a 9 wallet holder that will be working in a more semi central way, being under transparency and that we will keep power to vote out whoever bad apple that could cause trouble inside the groups. This will help to fund a big part of the dev actively working on the blockchain and hopefully speed thing up, those 9 must show what they does for the actualy 5k per month and the current work or progression they working on. ( this should make happy a part of the blockchain )
25% funding go to a dev pools wallet on our blockchain that will be used in grant scheme way contract over proof of work, so we can hire dedicated extra dev to help the pillar dev into the blockchain that will work together with team 1 or work on different stuff zaradar and EK see fit for the developpement chain through normal voting.
25% will be going to the community pools since we do beliave in Lunc price improving overtime its fair to put some of the liquidity in it for later time.
25% will stay pooled getting reward and improve in price overtime on the ETH chain, even tough we do beliave in lunc, like using a team more centralised and another more decentralised, splitting the asset to avoid putting all the eggs in the same basket. Looking for that 1 million to become 4-5 million later on during the next bullrun, where we will retrieve the asset to bring it over the blockchain.
This way we help the blockchain in 2 different ways in 2 different speed, we would also see if a semi centralised way can help the dev versus a more decentralised way. This plan will only work if both team can work together or on 2 different side of the needed developpement the blockchain will need. This i hope will reunite the blockchain into the same goal moving forward.
