Proposal For distribution of code for proposal 3568 (for the 1.2% burn) and for 4095 (re-enable delegation and staking)

Governance & Proposals
191

Hi @Slickrick37 ,

From an economic standpoint, when currency is in reserve, or held off market, the market adjusts as if it did not exist (at least until it comes back on market). Removing currency from the market is one type of retractionary policy that fiat based soft monetary policy systems use in their central reserve system strategy to provide greater buying power within the supply of currency on market. Burning is one aspect that could be construed as retractionary, however it is not the only one. The main aspect of retraction is to contract the supply in circulation on market, to increase buying power that underlies the currency, and so staking also does this. It is true that unlike burning, staking can come back on market, but the market does have a 21 day notice while large staked amounts decide to leave a staking pool and are unbonding. There are other retraction policies that can be used to raise the underlying buying power of LUNA on one side of the base pool, or the currencies meant to mirror the real world currencies on the other side of the base pool, and the TerraSDR that tie them together.

In addition, if the currency meaning to be staked is not already in the form of LUNA v1, any swaps would be subject to the burn tax. In addition, any moves on to chain would be subject to the burn tax, and that portion would be burned and removed from the total supply as well as the total circulation.

This is not to advocate, or detract, from the views that have been shared surrounding 3568 in regards to the merits, but only meant to help clarify how staking is also an aspect that removes currency from circulation on market, and has the effect of removing it from the market.

I just wanted to point that out (although I know you specifically asked @ek826 ). He may also have some thoughts on this as well.

I hope you have a great day :slight_smile:

1 Like
192

Hi @Slickrick37 ,

One other aspect of the portion “That no validator should achieve more than 20% of the voting power for an indefinite period until community governance decides otherwise” is that if for some reason the validator has an amount that is 20% and the staking power goes down so that the validator should end up with more than 20%, the only effect would be that no one would be able to delegate and stake with that particular validator until after they drop under 20% (the validator does not have prior delegations removed). Feel free to correct, or add, anything @ek826 .

I thought that was a fair point to mention as well.

I hope you have a great day :slight_smile:

2 Likes
193

I am also curiois how Terra Rebels make money with trying to run a blockchain. We know you aren’t doing this for free. That being said, how are Terra Rebels compensated for their services maintaining complex code, patches and updates moving forward?

194

The most important priority is saving the ship for now.

I am amused to see FUD posts at this juncture and of course, people who claim the vote is illegitimate???

4 Likes
195

Hi @Slickrick37 ,

Currently Terra Rebels is a volunteer based effort with about 29 developers or dev-ops volunteers (in addition to numerous others in various roles). At least 3 of these developers have prior blockchain experience, 2 with fin-tech experience, and one academic computer scientist ( @ek826 ).

I can not speak for Terra Rebels, and @ek826 may be able to give a better answer. I do, however, happen to know that they are attempting to organize into a separate decentralized autonomous organization, in service of the broader Terra v1 governance community (although not attempting to assume it in any way, but rather to serve it), and are seeking funding and organizing a broad based business model.

As personal observations: whether it is Terra Rebels, or other Terra v1 governance community members, or groups of the community, acting on behalf of the community, the Terra v1 whitepaper itself, in section 3, provides a path for the Terra v1 governance community itself, as its own decentralized autonomous organization, to support work on behalf of its own objectives. This would be through expansionary fiscal spending, through community pool spending proposals. There have been numerous projects that have been incentivized in this way in proposals in the past. Although these projects are normally external, the most critical of those projects, which brings value to the chain, of course is the maintenance of the project itself. It does require a community pool that is in a healthier position than it currently is, that is true. But, over time there have been specific aspects of the system that have been adjusted, such as seigniorage as an example, that may need to be adjusted due to the changes that have happened over the past few months, both for community pool fiscal incentives, but possibly also for helping to begin building a reserve (in regards to the stable mirror coin pegging restoration).

That said, I do believe, at least personally, from a personal professional position, and with conviction, this proposal at least provides an important template for any software trusted distribution and security, as a minimum (to make sure that the Terra v1 governance community, which includes validators, make code distribution decisions, and makes sure that due diligence has been done with regards to review, testing, and security - in a way that everyone can understand).

I hope that helps out a little bit.

I hope you have a great day today :slight_smile:

4 Likes
196

Maybe people will start asking the doctor how much he or she will charge before the doctors can treat the patients. But in an emergency case???

Come on…

2 Likes
197

Arguing is meaningless. The most important thing is change at now, change the status quo of community governance being kidnapped, and change the token brand pirated by DK, and then it is the perfect solution to the problems encountered in the process. It’s all better than waiting for death.

4 Likes
198

Let’s make a simple calculation of burning tokens at a rate of 0.5% per day:
7,000,000,000,000 tokens minus 0.5% burning daily = in a year there will be about 280,000,000,000 tokens

280,000,000,000 tokens minus 0.5% daily burn = about 11,200,000,000 tokens left in a year

11,200,000,000 tokens minus 0.5% daily burn = about 500,000,000 tokens left in a year

As you can see, in just 3 years, with the burning of 0.5% of the tokens, approximately 500,000,000 tokens will remain in circulation. As you understand, when burning 1% of tokens, the same result will be achieved much earlier.
So, after 3 years, there will be about 500,000,000 tokens in circulation - what price can they have? And the price will be much higher than $1.

5 Likes
199

And this is why the burn needs to be enacted. Anybody failing to understand that doesn’t understand basic maths. Hopefully then we can bring devs back - LUNC won’t survive without utility.

9 Likes
200

This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.

201

This topic was automatically opened after 8 hours.

202

Link To Formal Proposal Text

To Vote:

Note: In looking back in TFL’s repository for Terra Station we found that they made changes to the wallet without proposals. However, any changes that block or alter any aspect of governance should be made only with proposals (since documentation specifically states that TerraStation is how governance is to stake, to propose governance, and to vote). You can compare this with Terra v1 governance votes that have been passed

For this reason, any non-governance access changes, as mentioned above, regarding new functionality on TerraStation and the associated mobile applications to launch in tandem with v21 would be implicit with this proposal.

Note - Testing: Initial internal testing has passed for changes made to code re: “no validator should achieve more than 20% of the voting power for an indefinite period until community governance decides otherwise”

2 Likes
205

This system is set to automatically lock discussions when there are a large number of community flags. It was the system, or moderators, that removed the discussions that were flagged. You can look up in the posts and see where the system automatically locked and unlocked the discussion.

3 Likes
207

@Slickrick37 1,2 % is burned not paid to TerraRebels. In code you can see it is burned automaticaly and it reduces total supply. Why you ask like that? Another troller?

3 Likes
208

What’s your problem dude? Sell ​​it all and be done with it

3 Likes
209

Hi @Slickrick37 ,

The 1.2% from proposal 3568, for on-chain transactions, goes directly to burn directly after each block. There is a good presentation, in addition to section 3 in the paper “Emergency Management and Recovery of Luna Classic” that @ek826 put together on the topic, you can find it here

Terra Rebels is currently not being compensated, it is completely a volunteer effort at this point. They are currently seeking to organize as a separate decentralized autonomous organization, in service to the Terra v1 governance community.

The Terra v1 whitepaper, in section 3, does mention that the community pool should be used for fiscal incentive projects. These are normally dApps, and other projects, that would bring value to the chain. I was just pointing out that community spend proposals can be used for the Terra v1 governance community to fund its objectives, particularly in regards to development and maintenance of the project (so the Terra v1 community could choose to fund development projects out of these funds if they so choose).

While I personally believe, and have personally stated it, that development should be funded, even if partially, from the community pool, Terra Rebels so far has sought external funding and is organizing a broad based business model (which while include serving the Terra v1 governance community, also includes a broader scope beyond as well).

@ek826 may be able to give more definitive information on behalf of Terra Rebels.

I hope that helps out a little bit.

I hope you have a wonderful day today :slight_smile:

1 Like
210

Correct, but Terra Rebels will create fiscal stimulus through community pool, aka inflation… aka adding tokens to supply, to pay themselves for their services from what @aeuser999 stated which would be counterintuitive to the burn and create a cash register for Terra Rebels.

212

@aeuser999 You are wasting your time. It´s not needed to feed trollers. I just wait until they excactly say, why they are here. To make sure everybody can see it. Both of them or he is just one (i think he is just one) are/is here because he/they lost money while LUNC dropped.
There is no way to make them happy, they are trying to make LUNC price drop more. This makes them/him happy. But it´s never gonna happen. He probably even don´t own any LUNC, but he just troll here. It would be better when we just flag him everytime to make sure moderator can remove him and his accounts again. He got plenty of time, but i think it is going to make him crazy when discusion is closed. Just because he cann´t troll here.

4 Likes
213

in that case go there

214

Thank you admins for unflagging my posts as spam.

Terra Rebels,

What protocols or projects have agreed to build on your new code?