To Add to Previous Post (slow mode would not allow me to edit):
Note: It should be noted that 4095 code was reviewed by TFL and Cosmos developers (as stated in the description of the ticket). In addition, as @ek826mentioned earlier, regarding the code in this proposal, that:
I have verbally walked through the logic with a ex-TFL developer. He stated that it sounds ok in theory but would need to be tested. We have extensively tested the code on TestNet but we acknowledge that the real world is a different distribution.
We can have a webb for the luna classic (LUNC) project apart from luna 2.0 like ethereum and ethereum classic
As well as the discord channel and Twitter
This is my suggestion, thanks
@DEE2 Hello, I would like to answer your question correctly and honestly. Since you are on this forum, everybody here could be super optimistic or super pesimistic. Just because there are old investors and new investors at same time.
For me LUNC is very promising, because in this path of way we just already almost dropped old leadership of TFL´s. This is connection in many speculations and they just did some very bad actions like they didn´t vote and merged something and now they have problem to merge legaly voted proposals. This is long story let´s move on next reason.
As you can see this community can have last word and we can build more decentralized community than was before this is potencionaly very good sign, because it is more trustworthy than before.
Marketcap of LUNC and USTC market is also very high this means market tell something like this is not the end and WE KNOW IT! At this current situation market looks like it waits how implementation will work. (small daily volumes traded and almost same price after bull and bear. LUNC 0,0001 and 0,00009 per USD again and again)
SO to simply answer your question. Yes you should survive here, but first rule for crypto-investments says Don´t invest that money you just can´t loose for some reason. There is nobody that can tell you it will bull the price for 100 %. Not financial advice. Just my look at the situation.
Note: Since it has happened recently, I just wanted to note that the following block heights have changed:
StakingPowerRevertHeight = 9988390 (from approximately Nov 12 to Oct 26)
Note: StakingPowerRevertHeight re-enables the creation of validators after this block height.
DelegatePowerRevertHeight = 9109990 (from approximately Sept 12 to Aug 26)
Note: DelegatePowerRevertHeight re-enables the ability to delegate stake to existing validators after this block height (for consensus catch-up)
TaxPowerUpgradeHeight = 9346889 (is the same, approximately Sept 12)
Note: TaxPowerUpgradeHeight is when⌠[burn tax is] allowed to go into effect. This will still need a parameter change proposal [after the code has been distributed.]
Thank You Each:
I want to thank each of you who took time to vote, or advocate, and to share your concerns and comments (whether they were for or against) this proposal. Thank you so much
Although I know others may attribute it to something else (and I realize others will not share in this sentiment), but at least for myself personally, I will say that this is an answer to my prayer (Thank you Jesus).
My hope is that this discussion description, and proposal, can serve as a type of template for addressing future code related proposals, at least where TerraForm Labs (TFL) may choose not to consider community contributions as they have in the past. As Cosmos documentation states â⌠the protocol and software must also be obtained from a trusted source.â Trusted source is a security issue. Using this proposal, as a future template for other proposals, can help to make sure that core code based upon the protocol being proposed by community members, to the Terra v1 governance community, has due diligence review by experts in their field, a professional level of testing, and outlines security implications, review, and testing, and that provides for a level of trust that meets what a trusted source would provide (given that in a small network of an active set of validators, this is not only very important, it is crucial). Using this as a future template hopefully can provide a level of trust and security for the Terra v1 governance community, the protocol, and the relevant code.
It is with heartfelt gratitude that I want to Thank You each
Thank you aeuser999 and all the TerraRebels. I know nothing about crypto or how it all works, I was having a look around one evening and saw that Terra Luna had crashed big time so I bought some not knowing how or why it happened but thought I might be able to make a quick buck, after seeing what you guys have done and seeing how a lot of people have had their life savings and dreams ripped away from them through no fault of their own nothing would make me happier than to see these people prosper with the rebirth of LunaClassic.
All attention is for the 1.2% burn above us. We have to hurry. The sooner the better. this is a great opportunity for lunch.We shouldnât waste time when the first is so much
As mentioned in this comment above, the code in this release provides for the logic for a burn tax (extending the stability tax). The block height mentioned is when the code logic would become available for validators. There would need to be a parameter proposal to change the keys of the parameter from 0% to 1.2%. However, as is stated in the comment above:
This would be required in order for the burn tax (particularly the calculation of the gas fee) to work in a way that is constructive for Terra Station, dApps, exchanges and smart contracts.
I would imagine that the proposer of 3568, who is well aware of the situation, will propose a parameter change at the appropriate time.
I hope that helps out, and that you have a great day
From the beginning of the proposal discussion, the proposal itself, as well as in discussion during the time the proposal was open for voting, as well as afterwards, it has been acknowledged that the block heights (and therefore approximate dates) were to be flexible.
The block heights have actually been changed to happen sooner, for two of three aspects within the code, than what was in the original code linked in the description of the proposal discussion, as well as in the proposal itself. However, again, this deals with peopleâs money, and if it becomes apparent that block height adjustments are needed, then this proposal allows for those changes. If accelerating block heights causes rushing, that would be detrimental. If that should happen, then the block heights will be adjusted again to make sure that things are coordinated in a way that is not detrimental.
I hope that helps, and that you have an awesome day today
We are all in the same boat here, and we would not want a second collapse of TERRA, because although this ecosystem has collapsed, we still believe that it will recover, so give us hope, and I personally believe that thanks to your team it will recover. Donât delay with this, because people are already slowly losing faith in TERRA and running away from the platform. The more you pull the more people will run away from here.
I realized upon reading my response above that the section:
I would imagine that the proposer of 3568, who is well aware of the situation, will propose a parameter change at the appropriate time.
Sounded a little off. What I said was not meant to discourage anyone in the Terra v1 governance community from participating in governance, but instead was meant to acknowledge that whoever puts a parameter proposal in should be aware that there are aspects that still need to be met before that proposal is submitted. I would hope that whoever puts in a proposal gives a discussion period here on classic-agora prior to submission of the actual proposal. And, the original proposer of 3568 is aware of the issues that would need to be addressed first, and I do believe that person will put in a parameter proposal at the appropriate time. I just wanted to clarify that my statement was not meant to discourage others from participating in governance.
