[Proposal] Increase minimum deposit to reduce proposal spamming

Governance & Proposals
46

I agree with you in theory, but what you’re doing by comparing LUNC to other Tokens like Juno and other’s like it, is like comparing apples to bannanas.

LUNC is not only currently unstable, but has a lack of leadership to make the most basic changes so we rely on Governanceto do so. Further the governance system is broken. Most valid proposals do not pass Quarum wasting funds. With most stable tokens there also is not a need of proposals to fix so many items which caused the current mess like we have.

All this will do is slow down valid plans and possibly derail a legitamate plan of recovery.

Also $35 may not seem like a lot, and normally it’s not, but on a Token that you are down upwards of 99%, it is more like pouring salt into an open wound.

47

But people only lose that deposit if the proposal is heinous enough that it gets a no-with-veto result. Not just for no results.

1 Like
48

fair enought Rosanne but why risk it if it could be fixed now? Would be easy to do. Not doing it with this proposal raises the question whether the proposal is in fact supportive of a community future or malicious. How come this participant can whitelist their proposal while many other cannot? I don’t think this is random or not thought though.

49

You can tag mods in your post to see if they can fast-track the whitelisting of a proposal.

Normally I don’t weigh in on proposal discussions since I’m a mod, but I do think getting rid of those scams being spammed on the proposal page is important.

50

Just stop assuming it will rise back to 0.50 and 1. It’s never going to happen. Problem solved. Unfortunately for us we got dumped on the face by these scammers and lunc will now be d3ad forever.

51

But why not do it right the first time to add a dollar value to the tokens needed to post a proposal. If we have to do this down the road and someone has to spend Hundreds, or thousands even just to change what this proposal accomplished is counterintuitive.

If you fix something right, you should only have to fix it once.

1 Like
52

Look how much cleaner Osmosis governance looks with only a small number of important proposals rather than spam and scams directing your attention away from it. I don’t even like to look at the Station governance page now. Keplr - Your Interchain Gateway

53

Well, I half agree with ‘Sad’, Lunc is never going back to 50c anyway, but this is common practice to adjust minimums via proposals

54

Should the community ever get their way with reducing supply it could any way. At current supply it cannot go to $1 - change the supply, change that statement.

Again thank you Rosanne for your comments, I agree we don’t want spam but valid proposals. However even if its common practice to do this - it creates a problem we could solve now, easily. Not wanting to do this raises the question of why.

55

Or it fails to even reach Quorum. Which even most of the legitamate proposals have difficulty obtaining. This is what I meant by a broken governance system. Should have said fragmented. A lot of the validators just do not vote on anything currently.

I agree 110% with eliminating spam/scam proposals. That’s why Im not disagreeing with raising the cost. Just needs to be resonalble given our current enviroment, and not be prohibitive to legitamate governance.

56

I hope to see our’s look this clean soon :slight_smile: we will get there with a properly functioning governance system and fair process.

What is the cost to add a proposal there?

57

500 osmo :slight_smile: also at an all-time low price now around $1.20, was between $5-$8 for a long time.

58

Well that system is in better shape for sure. Looking at the propoals most if not all reached quorum and or passed. So that money gets returned.

If you look at the actual legitamate proposals on Terra Station, that should have at least recieved a vote or abstain to at least reach Quorum and all but 3 in the last month passed at least the Quorum level.

There is no consequence for failing to vote, or uphold any governance duties. So no incentive to participate in governance currently.

59

Most of them were just text proposals that lacked any implementation

60

The issue is not about the type of proposal. Even a paramiter change will need developers to make the change and my fear is that there is a lack of any development team (which has been stated) so nothing will get done even if a vote is successful.

Regarding the lack of voting, the reason has been said, by validators, that the reason there is no voting is due to a lack of implementation (regardless of type of proposal).

A legitamate proposal is just that, doesn’t matter if it’s a text or paramiter change.

Increasing costs like this while we have a broken governance system is only going to hurt us more than it will benifit us.

I agree with a higher rate to avoid some of the spam, but until it’s fixed that’s too high.

If there was some kind of penalty for failing to vote on a valid proposal, then there would be more incentive to vote. Even an abstain vote can help push it past Quorum.

Fix this issue and I’m in full agreement on a higher price, but one that is tied to a dollar amout so that it doesn’t become inhibitive.

61

https://twitter.com/john_is_whale/status/1534315862215344128?s=21&t=3KYL3JS5h4YxtO_AswAAcg do just like the Orion money validator, I asked your community if you want them to vote yes on proposal 3568 to burn luna. What do you have to lose, you already have luna v2 let us try to save luna v1 everything we ask for. Terra Station

…

62

Proposal got quorum and passed with 100% YES votes.

Here’s a link to my second proposal: [Proposal] Distribute 50% Transaction Fees to the Community Pool + Increase Proposer/Validator Rewards

64

You joined 4 days ago and think you actually know or understand the breadth of that conversation?

My comment was in response to @rosanne89 who was responding to someone else, not @dfunk . Someone, who’s account by the way has been deleted along with ALL his posts so again you clearly don’t understand what you were referring too. He made another Luna discussion board, and had his own plan which was to (I quote) “push TFL into Bankruptcy then swoop in and buy the github rights and IP on the cheap.” He was not a creditor, and was “brainstorming” ways to accomplish this.

Imagine that someone cared so little about destroying the token (further), the holders (financiall), and it’s community spirit (even more than it is), just so he could pay next to nothing for it and rebuild it off the backs of ALL OF US, for a profit.

THAT WAS what my comment was referring to so before tou try to tear someone apart at least try to understand the situation beforehand. Maybe ask if you’re unsure.

Also we, LUNC Token holders are not creditors in anything. We are the equivalent to a shareholder. We’re at the bottom of the barrel, and shareholders are usually wiped out in bankruptcy. I have a lot of experience in corporate bankruptcy as I was involved with a number of high profile bankruptcy cases over the last decade plus.

I imagine that, just like publicly traded companies, creditors could get new Tokens in exchange for debt, and old tokens would be cancelled outright. :thinking: this has yet to be tested on a crypto Token level however, so it’s only theoretical, but plausible.

To add, I never disagreed with dfunk about increasing the rate, just how it was being done, and wish it covered removing the need to whitelist since it’s taking care of the spam issue.

66

Well since you and or admin deleted every trail of what you said makes it hard to quote verbatum. But that was the idea of it.

What I meant was get access to TFL’s Github account, and buy it’s assets and IP cheaply, after pushing them into bankruptcy. Its funny how you didn’t deny the rest of what I said.

You have pretty much made it clear that the code itself is not what you’re after. Afterall, that IS available already and you could just Fork it if you wanted to. But you wanted the entire ecosystem including IP, because it has tremendous value.

Your plans involve a hostile takeover that would destroy everything, including equity of us investors, just to get it for nothing. You make Elon Musk look like a saint.

No, creditors do not own the assets. The assets are the property of the Corporation (TFL), and in the event of a payment default, there are options.

First, before filing bankruptcy options like refinancing, restructuring, cutting back costs like laying off staff, selling certain assets like real estate, and or issuing new stock (in this case tokens), to cover the debt. If ALL this fails to cover the defaulted amount and satisfy the debtors, and bankruptcy is the only real option than…

One is complete wind down wheras the assets get sold, usually to the highest bidder. This will happen if there is no chance for recovery. Think Lehman Brothers. A judge would oversee this to ensure that maximum value is obtained for the assets. Expect heavy scrutiny if you buy as other creditors could challenge it and or sue you for more money if there is any chance you undercut the system, and expecially if you were the one who caused the default triggering the bankruptcy in the first place.

Two, if there is a chance for recovery, then the current debtors (notice it’s plural) would do a debt for equity exchange, wiping out the current sharholders. There is a chance however that if there is enough valuable assets that can satisfy all or most of the debt, then the shareholders could retain ownership. Look into Washington Mutual, now called Mr. Cooper Group.

Also you can’t just push the Corporation into bankruptcy. You can push for payment and cause a default which could trigger a number of options including bankruptcy, but that’s not the only option. Also a Judge would weigh the evidence to see if bankruptcy is the only option. A judge would need to approve the bankruptcy filing. If they even suspect that the default event was orchastrated to push the corporation into bankruptcy, then chances are that won’t happen, and there could be penalties to the debt holder instead. There are also laws in place to prevent this kind of hostile takeover, but I think I made my point.