[Proposals] Terra Luna Classic Governance Framework

Overview: The previous cartel-oligarch structure under the guise of decentralization came in the middle of the night, and made major functional changes to Terra Station, and various social media outlets under the umbrella of the LUNA 2 initiative. In essence they self-exiled themselves, and left the newly renamed Luna Classic chain in a forsaken limbotic state.

With the recent reboot of LUNC [thanks to a group of defiant individuals], we now stand at the edge of an abyss of organizational chaos. At the expense of positive news and increase of value of the original Terra ecosystem, the old guard and new quasi-cartels will attempt to regain control. [The infighting will be disgusting, and thwart the true meaning of decentralization.]

Governance is a huge part of a democratic decentralized chain management. It is the core and essence to the pathway to success and ecosystem duration. If we do not learn from history, then history will repeat itself.

This will be a work in progress, and offers the community an opportunity for full transparency and discussion.

Issues at Hand:

Discussion Links

All proposals should be submitted with a link to the official Proposal and Governance channel on
classic-agora.terra.money. This prevents attempting to pass hidden agendas without the discussion and dissemination by the community.

Many times, a user(s) is attempting to pass a proposal that overlaps with another proposal that has already passed. [e.g., PR 4080 and PR 4340. Both have a provision of dev compensation.]

Another reason to submit a proposal with the omission of a discussion link would to sneak in a proposal to further one’s own agenda. [Out of sight and out of mind, and the equivalent to a passive governance attack.]

Note: We can improve the Terra Station UI to parse the URL to make sure it links-back to classic-agora.terra.money. Other social media channels such as Reddit, Discord, Twitter, and links to other media channels and sites would be auto-rejected. [Many require a registration process, and include the possible collection of customer private data. This also goes against the ethos of Crypto.]

SPAM and Cool-down Period

Just because a user meets the proposal deposit does not grant them the right to artificially game the system. Posting the same proposal numerous times in hopes of passage, or through technical voting manipulation, should have this proposal identified and immediately rejected by Classic Terra administrators.

A cool-down period under normal operational conditions should be coded and expressed in N days.

For example, PR 4354 was posted twice in a period of seven days. The same exact title and summary, as the first proposal failed to meet quorum. With a cool-down, and discussion link as requirements, this will help grant additional time for public dissemination of the newly introduced proposal.

Using the same example as above, PR 4354 could include the required discussion link, and wait a period of 14 days prior to resubmission. [Cool-down period can be a parameter change, and adjusted as required through the governance process.]

Certain conditions such as a State of Emergency condition, and parameter changes will need to be excluded from the cool-down threshold.

Restoration of Terra Station Classic Web UI

The current architecture of Terra Station allows public access via HTTPS [Web] to LUNA2, but not LUNA Classic. This means no classic proposals can be reviewed publicly or linked to via the Internet.

Again, in addition to the reasons listed above, this type of hidden proposal structure prevents users [stakeholders, members of the community] that are not directly connected to Terra Station from reviewing and participating in the voting and delegation process.

For example, if I want to provide a public link to proposal, PR 4335, how would I do that? Do you any of you even know [without a connected wallet], what this proposal is about? Is it posted for discussion in the Governance and Proposal section? No.

Without the Web component, and without the link requirement, many can use this lack of transparency to pass proposals that overlap or could encumber the recovery of the Classic ecosystem.

Pegged Proposal Deposit

A fixed cost peg to a stable benchmark [e.g., USD] should be adopted in lieu of LUNC. As LUNC has the potential to become exponential in price thereby potentially locking the community out of the proposal process.

For example, today a 100,000 LUNC deposit may be worth 50 USD, but five days from now $5000 USD. If the deposit auto-adjusts to match the fixed peg, then we can avoid locking ourselves out of the governance system, and the system will maintain fairness.

Great to hear for the community.
But i’m not sure to understand what happened tonight.
DK and the TFL tried something against LUNC ?
I thought they were ok for the code merge of v21 ?

Who will pay for this change cost?

You will bear the expense, as there are no programmers being paid for it.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Proposal 4080 was already passed, and it has an earmarked funds provision.

Many of us have volunteered our time unconditionally here as investors of LUNC/UST. I’m sure A.E. isn’t on a Terra payroll.

I have my own dev team, and we could do it, and without cost; however, I want to see how the “Community” handles this. Will they fight amongst themselves? Will greed and power with control trump the community again? Will some devs crawl back to DK? Why not answers CZ’s offer of assistance? I’m sure they would help, or will LUNC choke on pride and ego.

These are important questions, and only their actions will set the tone for a successful future.


My observations in support

  • Spam proposals
  • Scam proposals
  • Never-ending proposals that don’t clear off of station after the 7-day voting period expires. Bug post tax?
  • Garbage on-the-fly proposals written without discussion or thought of consequences.
  • Tantrum proposals that are written by five year olds that are vengeful and hateful, because they didn’t get their way.

Governance could use some love. It’s like governance graffiti that needs a paint over. Thank you!