Yet, Ziggy - as it was initially proposed - did make no mentions of pulling a fork and having a dedicated gaming chain. (The multipart chapter back in January or so)
The original Ziggy proposal suggested modifying the Oracle Exchange Rate. As pointed out to me, this is a consensus-failing alteration, and has gone over 5-6 different iterations since. That is the nature of creating. If you would like to return to voting on modifying Oracle Exchange Rates, you can put that up for vote and see how it goes.
Not to mention - the team that has been proposed leaves me puzzled. LUNCDao? Alex?
As mentioned in P#11324, anybody can work on Ziggy. Personally, I don’t care for identities, doxxed or pseudonym. If you produce good work, you produce good work. If you want funding for that work, you apply for funding, either privately or through the DAO. I don’t really care. In terms of a MS controlled in a 5/9, it’s not preferred. I’d rather have Anchor forks that are integrated with individual validators. This is a much easier way to diffuse risk.
Just the method chosen is a 180 of what I intially expected and had hype for.
What is the initial expectations and hype for you? Expectations and hype can really dampen things, because you have an idea in your head that you’re reliant on someone else to procure for you. When working at scale, those ideas simply become a shared Venn Diagram, and you choose which overlaps work for you.
And it seems that Duncan hasn’t exactly communicated this plan with all the team members beforehand. RedLiner will move on with his idea as Ziggy or partitioned pools will not exactly overlap, yet the idea was - as I understood - to have all the different parties together and meld their ideas into one, definitive solution (if possible).
I have a few people who are volunteering their time to help me out. Redline is on my team as much as those people are, because we are working on collective solutions for a collective product (“blockchain” and “protocols”).
The analogy I have provided prior is: “in order to sail the Seven Seas, you’ll want to send out more than 1 boat.” How many boats did Columbus take with him?
they are fools !!! they want to fork again, to fix a secondary wrapped shitty coin that nobody gives a damn. the chain is like holes in swiss cheese. this proposal was made with the sole purpose of making us sink, and ruin your day I don’t think it’s real.
Imagine that you could transfer your LUNC to any chain – any chain at all! (Maybe except Bitcoin)
Do you want to use your LUNC on Ziggy? On Terra Classic? On Phoenix? Maybe a chain you don’t know about in the future?
If you just have LUNC, then, well, you’re definitely limited to just that. If Terra Classic simply resets to using LUNA and reverting “classic” artifacts, then you could do that, indeed!
wLUNA holders understand this notion. Instead of downplaying them, see from their eyes, see the immense value proposition they bring to the table, and lever it instead.
I have a different kind of question that you have partially addressed in your paper.
You have noted and shared with us that the Terra Foundation owns and operates the current Terra Luna Classic Community. So legally, we already have an owner, or as far as I understand.
Now the question is different - are you looking at working on legalities for either Ziggy, Stardust or UST to separate it from TFL? Or are you doing this so that UST can be retained with TFL? Or are you not working on the legalities part at all (for now)?
I am also asking you this because to fork the chain next time, I would personally like to see some kinda liabilities associated to this operation so that if anything goes wrong, the development team has to pay back to the community pool whatever losses we make. You are aware about the UST minting issue that happened last time. We need to account for such things in the future even if I am the one who is doing this.
This is our responsibility towards the chain.
In terms of liability, the fork is instantiated with a new Oracle Rewards Pool that is seeded with opt-in investors. If that number is 0, then Oracle Pool Rewards will be 0 for validators and delegators. You utilize replicated security on a validator set and give them controlling shares of the network in order for them to secure a baseline ROI based on RewardDistributionWindow (24 months). If the network doesn’t accrue any value, then their risk is mitigated, though not nullified (I do not believe in “risk-free” investments, only risk-minimized, such that it appears grossly asymmetric for the investor).
Terra needs to focus on global adoption. Regulations for individual fiats apply to the Terra fiat assigned to the country’s own chain (eg manhattan-1, bombay-1, etc). If the US does not want to support this version of Terra (Ziggy/Stardust), then we simply deprecate its use and allow other countries to do it. This does mean that, in order to roll back value to USTC, it needs to be converted via LUNA, or otherwise, SDT. Not really something I recommend in general because it’s basically saying “I don’t want this country to be part of the market share for X industry.”
Startups are often associated with high-risk ventures, so, to reduce liability on the dev side, you can vest tokens/coins as determined by protocol, eg Oracle rewards. For example, a dev multisig (or similar solution) can be publicized. Then, the money for those payments are vested into it, either over time, post-deliverables, or both.
As far as liabilities related to minting x UST, the idea is to provide some kind of lock-up for people who don’t want exposure to volatility. That would mean converting to something like USDT/USDC at the dollar rate prior to fork. Anybody who “bought cheap” and wants to ride it up to $1 or $0 takes on the risk by not converting.
For these reasons and more I oppose your plan and believe in my own. As you mentioned the 1.2% burn tax in your response to me, which is part of my Vision Plan, I gave this explanation, otherwise I won’t go off-topic here and leave it to your proposal.
More than welcome to have that. The only problem I have seen with the burn tax is the cost associated with the middle “income” tranche; largest holders are exempt from taxation, poorest holders receive large benefits, and middle holders essentially pick one side or the other. It also prefers the largest holders over an arbitrary amount of time, creating a “valley curve” of wealth distribution. If you trim supply across the board across all wallets, it’s a game of chicken on who pays taxes first, given a static environment. ie, there needs to be more dynamism in order for me to support an increase of a global tax. I actually would like to strive towards the 2-basis-point fee rate over time, but that can be discussed elsewhere.
Without LFG wallets, we can rebuy 90%~ of supply in 0.02-0.1 range.
If the chain owns 10% of the supply, then you have to “rush in” so much value that it drives the price exponentially up, and in a short period of time. That is to say, if the max range is ~$980K for on-chain, you need to put in 10x that amount plus some because you’re going to get sell-offs all the way up. There is no other way to do this except to tax until year 3005, expropriation, or some other form of manipulation that goes against blockchain ethos and standards.
Please stop this tasteless joke, this post was started with the sole purpose of proposing something totally absurd and intricate with the sole purpose to induce investors to sell all their lunc tokens, it’s not serious…
Would you like to elaborate?
Fair enough, I’ve seen this complaint brought up by multiple people now.
Again, I would like to clarify what people thought their hopes and expectations were. At any point we can flip the switch and go to $1. The way you prefer is going to vastly differ. Do you want to be taxed until we get there? Do you want to onboard new capital? Do you want to test the algorithm and scale it? How long do each of those methods take? Should everyone be subject to all of them at once?
If you have a better vision, and have your own set of expectations and hype, then I highly suggest pursuing it yourself.
I was thinking if we use partitions instead of a fork you can actually tie Duncan’s, Zaradars and mine together. It would also mean all transactions stay on the Terra Classic network.
So that could still be done if that what people want, they don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
It’s the much easier way to do it. Compare the two architectures:
[uluna] – [uluna] – [uluna] – […] – [uluna]
<(uluna, tbtc, teth, tmir, …), (uusd, ukrt, ugbt, ujpy, …)
Difference between having a bunch of different chains (still necessary as “rollup” style protocols) and using a simple List/Dictionary/KVP mechanism of Type<Luna, Terra>.
