Cool, can we talk directly about the governance of which you are also aware? Can we get the vote for governace?
I donāt have any opinion on luna classic personally, other than agreeing that re-enabling staking is problematic. but I guess I have no value left to lose on that chain, so if people are to vote to re-enable staking, itās not going to make any difference to my life.
You already know that there is no Governance, thatās why we are going to add two proposals to build a better community? Let the community decide before any proposals go out.
That will be the community decision, not by DK, You or me to decideā¦
2 Likes
Of course!
That will be great if you could do the white lists when that two proposals are coming to Terra station for the voting process?
1 Like
I donāt have access to that, only Terra Station devs do. It has been mentioned to them that there are some proposals awaiting whitelisting. Naturally they are very busy, with the number of upgrades and bug fixes that need tending to
So, could we announce that we will vote at Station while we wait for approval?
Pls dont chnge the subject , mod can you eliminate slow mode on his porposal so we dont talk about his in this thread (all proposals are valid and his proposal is also a good one )
Iām not stopping you from doing anything there. Just about accusing some poor random dude of being Do Kwon.
1 Like
I donāt have access to that either
Well, we have some points to believeā¦ flagging triggered me as well.
1 Like
Well, we are not changing the subject, we are trying to make sure government is good, you are welcome to vote as a community because I see stable governance as an important thing before we change anything. Bye for now, please make a sure vote when it comes.
4 Likes
No worries you are a good asset.
Here is the new version.
I doesnāt really matter does it ? We canāt prevent OTC deals from happening and whales from being r_gged 
But I think Iāll see your point, you can setup the smart contract so that it can self enforce, and everyone can review it and audit it independently before sending the funds / tokens.
This is actually how you fix it, very cheap tokens / whales mean people can run their validators and decide for themselves what they want. So first we need to reduce the token number of their concentration if you want. Thatās called a sybil attack
Ok so lets start
First lets see if validators and devs are ok with this.
Second go for governance
Third if accepted and tokens got burned we will have to activate staking (it must be done ) since there will not be anyone that could attack it.
In my opinion governance should be activate asap but it will never happen since we got greddy validators
1 Like
yep, sounds good to me, Iāve asked the terra builder association to look into it, and letās see if we get some engagement feedbacks from them and validators. This should actually go for voting in both LUNC and LUNA since weāre asking for some of the community pool there
3 Likes
The proposal looks good but there will be a bit of compromise here and there.
Just looking forward to moving things again.
1 Like
Indeed - however thereās also the argument that those the holders of those tokens have as much right to determine how to proceed as holders of any other token. In that respect, passing any proposals that exclude those tokens from the process is fundamentally illegitimate.
The core of this proposal - a buyback and burn + option - doesnāt really need community approval. It can just be done, if someone can come up with the funds and write the smart contracts properly.
The strategic component of the proposal is premature to attempt to gain consensus on given the current state of the governance and community.
Iām not sure whether the current state of Terra1 would actually allow the required smart contracts to work, tho prior to the crash they would likely have. If I get a chance Iāll look into it to check, but likely someone who knows already will be able to respond before that. However, a proposal to enable any such features would be the ideal minimum thing to actually try to pass here - if anything.
I am increasingly coming to believe that the only proposal that should be formally raised at this time however is one to safely reenable formal governance, if only as an interim measure. How exactly to do that is the subject of another thread, but I donāt see how any other, or more broadly-scoped, proposal can either succeed or claim legitimacy of any success otherwise.
3 Likes
Iām happy with that too to be honest @The1stImmortal, but what we canāt do IMO is just let people hanging with their losses on a de_d network where nothing can happen hoping for everyone to forget while we re moving to business as usual. Especially if something can be done, not good for the industry as a whole.
And so I do believe we need some sort of support from the devs and the validators since thatās what the community has asked for. I mean DK said he would buy and burn but didnāt have the funds to do so.
Here we require 200M from the luna pool + 65M$ instead of billions so itās very much feasible with support from the governance / DK.
Similarly it has been said IBC channel would reopen, there has been a vote and an official tweet, but again nothing happens because it is not safe to do.
So we should shut down the whole thing once and for all or put interim governance in place or do something like this proposal but we canāt just ghost an entire part of the community / token holders.
1 Like