Hey there, you really need to keep in mind the types of losses suffered by the cosmos community here.
I could get angry but I’m not going to do that. I have spent enough time angry about enough silly things that I’m not going to respond to you with anger.
You need to keep in mind that I didn’t make any of those decisions. Furthermore, I respect the people who stepped in to try to help. I fully get your point of you. That’s why I’m actually saying that I would help with the code necessary to get governance working again on T1. I understand that you’re hurt. Please understand that I am hurt as well and that I am here basically in a volunteer capacity and very happy to help you.
Please furthermore note that Tara is built on Cosmos. If you are dissatisfied with governance, you need to understand that it was a conscious decision of the T1 to team to use the governance features built in cosmos. They could have implemented different governance, but did not. Furthermore, they could have implemented a more stable stable coin, but did not.
Tell you something not so secret:
I actually like and support the Terra engineering community and consider them colleagues.
Furthermore please also understand that doesn’t mean that I got paid by them. That did not happen. Instead, we worked together on some very difficult database issues and those are beginning to bear fruit.
When the decision was made to disable staking/gov there was utter and absolute panic. Please forgive my friends for whatever you think they did because I assure you they had everyone’s best interest in mind and not only osmosis.
No one was helped by terra’s failure, not a single soul.
How come you received xtimes more aidrop than any other investor after the depegg ?
People who received nearly no airdrop because they invested after the depegg have no other choice than fighting for lunc.
Like I said Faddat, we are not here to fight, we want a peaceful transition to a new form of T1, with a new governing system that will compete with the T2. We will try our best to survive. We just want to move on.
You are also aware that current governing is unsafe, how about we come up with new contract governance, with escrow as we mention in draft #1, will you be able to support it? We will build on Cosmos as usual.
If you would really want to help, please pass the message to them to step down from T1 officially, Then we could work with you and build a new governing system with escrow to grow with a new team for the future. We forgive them and we will move on with the community support of T1.
Hey there, I really don’t think that anyone in Cosmos is trying to hold back t1.
I have no idea if it can or should proceed. There are some deeply broken and dangerous items in its code.
With this said, I’ll also tell you that I believe that it’s the user community, not myself or even the validators who should ultimately make that decision. If the chain is to be put down, honestly I am in support of it provided that the community is given the opportunity to vote on the matter. I realize that there is a community here that wants to see it continue. I’m not here to argue against that conclusion. In fact, I would likely find me to be one of the most supportive people and ensuring that governance is able to do its job.
We make the state of the next block on a 2/3 consensus majority. It was noticed that supply of luna was spiraling out of control. Rumor has it Zaki noticed this first, but I do not know. It is certainly something that had chased around the back of my mind, too.
When anybody can capture 2/3 of the staked supply of any cosmos chain, they are able to control it. They can assign a byzantine validator, and no one will even know.
I believe that this would have had further reaching effects then the decision to disable staking and governance. That’s why I supported and still support the decision in hindsight, to disable governance and staking on t1.
My primary interest is in removing IBC assets from T1. It’s along the way that means bringing it back to life, I can except that. If along the way that means killing the chain in a permanent sense, I can except that too, provided that there is an opportunity for the Luna holders to vote, and to stake, so that all of the Luna holders can have a voice in that decision.
I’m reading the conversation with you gents and I agree that no one is served at this point arguing when trying to help restore #LUNC. That can be a different conversation.
And Thank you for offering to help, I do believe there are many that would offer similar help, both developers and validators.
Those in control of Classic need to let it go and let a new community form around it with a more fully decentralized governance. If T2 want to be involved, then fine, let’s all work to restore the Terra name. And T2 will continually have a negative impression if something like this doesn’t happen. The sum of the parts could be much bigger with all involved.
Those in control of Classic need to let it go and let a new community form around it with a more fully decentralized governance. If T2 want to be involved, then fine, let’s all work to restore the Terra name. And T2 will continually have a negative impression if something like this doesn’t happen. The sum of the parts could be much bigger with all involved.
Please let me help in identifying those in control: it’s the validators, and to the best of my knowledge, no one else.
How do we proceed is the question??
restoring governance, even if it is to only “bring home” ibc assets and then terminate t1, is the most viable path to proceed on in my personal opinion.
Realisticly do you think there is someone who holds as a sole entity more than 1 trillion tokens ?
no clue, but we’re taught in blockchain nerd school to anticipate every possible crappy outcome and then assume that someone will invent a worse outcome.
When anybody can capture 2/3 of the staked supply of any cosmos chain, they are able to control it. They can assign a byzantine validator, and no one will even know.
The point I made here is an oversimplification, please forgive. It isn’t exactly undetectable-- there’d be many signs something funny had happened, but it certainly could happen.
So your solution is to terminate the T1 period, back to the circle Do Kwon wants. What do you really mean about “bring home” ibc assets? can you explain what the laymen understand here?
If they are the bad players here, how about we fix the structure to make PoW better than giving more right to them.
You can’t shoot down Col-5, you’ll all get sue’d by the sec and their intergov partners into oblivion. You’ll also destroy crypto through regulation while they do it. Col-5 has no choice but to live and move on. LUNA is an unregistered Security and so is UST, there are cases in trad-fi that mirror this and you’ll legitimately be throwing crude oil into a dumpster fire by axing the network.
Don’t make another stupid decision on top of another. First you removed market module cap and diluted luna into infinity, next you want to just blow up all the shares? lmao you dev’s are nuts and need a sound and sane legal counsel for what you’re coding. Keep in mind you still have outstanding debt notes.
note, sorry if your not a terra dev, not directed at you but just at anyone in general who wants to blow up col-5, the zombie must survive for real world purposes.
Lots. I assume millions of dollars worth of osmo and atom and juno and scrt, as well, as “others”.
Any numbers?
No hard numbers, I’m afraid. I am making an assumption.
If they are the bad players here, how about we fix the structure to make PoW better than giving more right to them.
That is impossible – or at least, I would not write that code, and it would be immensely technically challenging.
So your solution is to terminate the T1 period, back to the circle Do Kwon wants. What do you really mean about “bring home” ibc assets?
I’ve described two solutions:
terminate t1
restore governance and let t1… do … something.
I defer to LUNC holders on which path to take and endorse neither.
can you explain what the laymen understand here?
In IBC, assets have an origin chain and a destination chain. Assets moved from their origin chains to T1. Users wish to bring assets home to their origin chain. I wish to help them with that, which means restoring IBC.
You can’t shoot down Col-5, you’ll all get sue’d by the sec and their intergov partners into oblivion. You’ll also destroy crypto through regulation while they do it. Col-5 has no choice but to live and move on. LUNA is an unregistered Security and so is UST, there are cases in trad-fi that mirror this and you’ll legitimately be throwing crude oil into a dumpster fire by axing the network.
No, I do not think so.
Furthermore, to me, this is an engineering conversation, and one that is intended to benefit both cosmos and Terra.
We have a zombie, my friends.
Given that we have a zombie, the only ethical thing for us to collectively do is to either shoot it, or bring it back to life. I do not support necromancy under any set of circumstances. Restoring governance un-zombifies t1.
I don’t care what Do’s stance is, though as the creator of the chain, honestly I recommend carefully hearing out his opinion.
This forum and that chain – for better or for worse, exist because of Do.
How many validators do we need to restore governance, 51% ?
Is it realisticly possible to mark the coins of the 10 wallets which holds 70% of all lunc tokens so they can not be staked when re enabling staking/governance ?
Well, we will stick to #2, but as I said, the government system needs to be fixed before we roll out.
That means, they will push back to the origin chain, settle it, and wipe out the T1. It is like a settlement then.
So, can we conclude with 3 options for the community for fair votes?
restore governance, keep the same government, and vote to pass by like before
Rebuild the new governance structure, and keep the same team
Rebuild the new governance structure, and move on with the new T1 Team
If they don’t try to hold back T1, let other developers access the core to patch. Without the core, we will likely get a fork, which is not good for everyone, and the community doesn’t like that even.
You really will. I don’t think your considering how far reaching the legal implications of this collapse actually were. USD security, Lehman like collapse, While regulation isn’t out now there is no way stakeholders here are getting a free pass. Have you seen new EU legislation rolling out? What about US, Canada, UK, etc? It’s not like you can wipe your hands clean from this and say it never happened. I’d say 50m or 500m sure but we’re talking about 60bn wiped overnight… Real human life was lost and that is not OK.
You don’t even know if your ALLOWED to move those IBC assets off chain yet. Forget about the technical possibility.
If validators are the one’s in control, then they are the one’s who hold legal liability over the collapse. It’s as simple as that.
If validators are the one’s in control, then they are the one’s who hold legal liability over the collapse. It’s as simple as that.
I don’t think anyone, even TFL, crossed the line from building a rocket ship that might explode, into blatant illegal or unethical actions.
You don’t even know if your ALLOWED to move those IBC assets off chain yet. Forget about the technical possibility.
Please don’t speak of this as something I’d do. I can’t. If validators make the code changes on their nodes, users can move their assets. I can do almost nothing, and that is by protocol design.
It’s not like you can wipe your hands clean from this and say it never happened. I’d say 50m or 500m sure but we’re talking about 60bn wiped overnight… Real human life was lost and that is not OK.
I am with you, that’s not okay, it is a sandwich ser/m’am.
That does not necessarily mean that any law was broken here.
Please don’t “you” it. I am not a t1 validator.
I wish to help all involved communities, if possible.
I think the cause of ‘shooting the t1 zombie’ is unethical and unjust. I also think it carries far reaching consequences in real life and the industry that shouldnt be looked over.
I also think that assets on chain are just as wrapped in this as everything else.
If the market module was to be restored, UST would represent direct share of luna governance with its full dillution. I think that is the route that should be taken, governance through UST token versus LUNA. Allow Luna to be convertible to UST but not the other way around. That can circumvent some of the 51% attacks you are suggesting Terra is right now prone too.
I understand the “really broken” things your talking about is mirror protocol, and some other synthetic style assets. I think that that is unfortunately what the market is and we have to let it try in the sun as it is meant to. Just as you are suggesting we should let the IBC assets be bridged off. The only way around that is litigation honestly.
Killing T1 will look like “Burn down the evidence of UST ownership”, please for goodness sake, download the snapshot of block height in JSON format. That could be useful in the future in lawsuits for UST. So people should get 1:1 after the lawsuits.
sandwich ser/m’am.