To add some detail to these points, @echel0n and I have tested and confirmed that all Layer 2 infrastructure components, with the exception of Mantlemint, are operating correctly, and that all existing Rebel Station functions operate as expected in the v2.0.0 testnet.
For both the TR and Allnodes infrastructure to correctly operate in mainnet, it is imperative that a new Mantlemint release is issued and tested prior to the vote on this proposal being passed.
As I understand, then you plan to upgrade to Luna Classic v2.0.4
On the page at Medium you wrote:
"A key component of the Luna Classic v2.0.4 upgrade scheduled to take place prior to the end of Q1 of 2023 is the Cosmwasm upgrade to v1.1.1. Upgrading Cosmwasm to the most current versions will cause issues with existing Smart Contracts, and will require that they be updated prior to the upgrade. "
That is, after the upgrade 2.0.4, smart contracts will stop working. And you suggest updating them. But what about those who do not have access to manage smart contracts? I represent the mirror protocol community. And we successfully continue to use the mirror functionality. Mirror is a DAO, and we don’t have the resources or ability to accommodate your upgrade now. Your activity will just destroy the mirror protocol and is more like sabotage than good. Do you think is it normal? I think not, and such initiatives will only reduce the price of LUNC.
Thank you for your attention.
anyway the mirror protocol needs a security review to avoid possible failures and getting hacked.
If the contracts stop working, then no one will do it
They cannot pretend to create a dapps and leave it as it is for life without improvements or growth.
One of the core principles of blockchain is immutability. And when the rules hard changes, it’s not a blockchain, it’s an excel spreadsheet. Investors will not go to a such project.
Casting my votes after work.
Yes to this one too.
Upgrades and burn changes showing positive movement. Let’s keep up that pace back to 0005 and beyond.
Waiting on EDK for the next move 
feeling good with all this.
The chain is immutable and that will not change post-upgrade. It’s the underlying technology supporting that immutability that needs to change to safeguard the first against software bugs and limitations.
Otherwise, we might as well still be using Windows 3.11 
WARNING: There seems to be a discrepancy between the version of the proposal v2.0.0 which we are currently discussing, and the one that we are currently voting on labeled prop v2.0.1. It’s possible that these two proposals are not identical. I say this because when I tried to access the link to read the official v2.0.1 proposal for voting, it didn’t work. Therefore, please exercise caution and do not vote “yes” for v2.0.1 without carefully reviewing the proposal details and confirming that it’s the same version we are discussing here. This situation is quite suspicious, and we should investigate further to ensure transparency and fairness in the voting process.
It is the same proposal; somehow the DOT at the end of the URL in the proposal made it into the translated URL string. If you remove it you’ll be redirected here.
Thanks for clarifying, godoal. Also, can you please explain why are there 2 different props: v2.0.0 and v2.0.1? it’s important to ensure that we are all reviewing and voting on the correct version to avoid any confusion or misunderstandings.
L1 Grift Force at it again. 
Lmao I dunno if you’ve noticed, but our L1 team tried to sneak in blacklisting code to help their friends at Terraport. They don’t give a rat’s ass about immutability or respecting the ethos of crypto.
Oh no, who could have predicted this? Our L1 team being dishonest again? What a surprise!
Lmao they’re gonna nuke so many dApps because they’re too lazy to offer a migration/sunset period. Stop defending their ineptitude and lack of anything resembling safe programming practices. The L1 Grift Force is interested only in getting paid, they’re already scrambling for a 6-month contract in Q3. They don’t give a crap about the state of the chain or its health - if they did, they’d show more care and would dedicate time to ensuring the network doesn’t suffer from one upgrade to the next.
Am afraid I can only guess why, so it’s better for @fragwuerdig, @nghuyenthevinh2000 and/or @LuncBurnArmy to answer that question.
(P.S Maybe that WASM cherry patch was that important!)
I agree that it’s crucial to receive a prompt response from them as any delay in the process could lead to neither proposal passing, causing further setbacks. Currently, I have voted NO WITH VETO due to these unresolved issues, but I’m willing to change my vote to YES once this hurdle gets cleared. Let’s hope we receive a clarification soon to move forward with the discussion and voting process.
We do not have time to wait for DAPPs to improve their programs. They should simply follow the rhythm of the blockchain
What I see is many vague people who don’t want to do anything. There are many DAPPS with shabby design that look like the 80s
Yet all of you are screeching for parity so we can get more dApps.
So you want the dApps, but have no problem nuking dApps to get there. 
Great logic, champ! 
Your time banned from Twitter dumbed you down…. Or your just caught up another thread to bash L1 TF… I’m disappointed on you Aaron.
Gut_Daddy will be voting YES on this proposal