no
1)minimum commission rate has nothing to do with decentralization
2)maximum voting power should be lower but there was another proposal and got rejected if I am not mistaken
1 Like
Allonode suggestion needs to be looked at.
[
Allnodes
](https://twitter.com/Allnodes)
We vote “No” for #TerraClassic $LUNC Prop 11322. Increasing the minimum commission for everyone will make life for small validators worse. Instead, we will support a proposal with a dynamic minimum commission based on VP while allowing 0% for any validator with VP less than 1%.
I endorsed what allnodes is saying.
- If the minimum commission fee is set to 5% , it may discourage new validators from joining the network, reducing competition and potentially leading to centralization.
- The 5% commission fees may make it more difficult for validators with limited resources to participate in the network, leading to centralization and reduced decentralization.
3 Likes
Why not wait for the coding to be done. There is presently no imminent danger that the chain will collapse if it’s not done immediately . What will happen though is that the 5% will do harm as stated in one of my posts.
1 Like
Voting NO on this proposal. It’s anti-freedom and not a reasonable restriction.
1 Like
No longer trust Terra Rebel after the $150k cash grab. It’s a no from me.
2 Likes
Increasing the minimum commission fee to 5% would result in an interference with open competition and a shift towards a planned economy, away from a free market economy. There are also several negative consequences to consider:
- Limitation of competition and innovation: New participants may be discouraged from entering the market, leading to a reduction in competition and innovation.
- Higher fees for delegators: Delegators may experience higher fees, reducing their returns and making the system less attractive.
- Discouragement of delegations to smaller validators: Smaller validators may struggle to offer competitive commission rates compared to larger validators, leading to a decrease in delegations to these entities.
- Concentration of power: A concentration of power may occur among a few large validators, reducing the decentralization of the system.
Now gradually stakers are transferring tokens from validators with a high interest rate to validators with a 0% rate.
If this proposal is accepted, the high fee validators will stop losing tokens.
This means that the adoption of this proposal will lead to the concentration of rates around 20-30 large validators.
The network will suffer from this.
Accepting this offer will reduce the profitability and interest of staking.
And in the future, the LUNC token may again become a scam.
Is this the future you want for LUNC?
2 Likes
Because it could take weeks and maybe even months to code + test + debug this. Dynamic fees are a massive change to how the system currently operates, and will probably require a spending prop to finance the coding work. I want 5% minimum fees ASAP so big validators running 0% are forced onto a more level playing field with the small guys forced to run in the red.
Also I don’t appreciate you reposting the AllNodes tweet here. You’re trying to influence the voting patterns of anyone else reading this thread, and it’s pathetic. AllNodes always take days to vote on props, yet they cast their vote instantly on this one. It’s a political play. And you pasting their tweet here shows me you’re not interested in good-faith debate, but want to push an agenda as well. People shouldn’t be judging proposals based upon what “authority figures” say (and despite what everyone likes to believe, AllNodes is one such figure due to their history with LUNC and their massive stake). But so many of you are eager to ride the popularity bandwagon that you can’t even parse arguments on their own without looking for the nearest opinion to parrot.
Also, every single one of your “arguments” against the 5% change was dissected already in my responses to Frag and Rexyz. The fact you keep re-stating them shows that either you’ve not read that (which I doubt, since you seem to lurk here constantly), or more likely you’re simply ignoring them to grind an axe.
Either way, I’m done discussing anything with you.
So if Terra Rebels came out with a rock-solid USTC repeg plan tomorrow, you’d vote NO on that just because they were the ones to propose it?
Rock-solid reasoning there, friend! 
You should read all the comments in a thread before posting your own.
Your points have already been covered and answered.
Wrong. VP is constantly in flux and delegations come and go.
Do you really think I am the only one who has reservations about your proposal? Do you think I would allow myself to be silenced by your shouting?
My agenda is and will always be ; to be objective in any discussion. How many people will my post sway?
He is stating facts. Pathetic; give me a break.
The bottom line is that your proposal will have a negative effect on new validators and validators who are struggling. Why do you think small validators set their commission rate to 0%? Are you saying also that validators with less than 1% voting power who are voting NO on this proposal have agendas too or do not know what a NO vote means.
At times proposers suffer from an “I” syndrome mentality. It should not be what I want; rather it should be what the community wants.
It is important to carefully consider the potential impact of a change in commission fees on the network and its users, and to make changes based on a thorough analysis of the trade-offs involved.
You have a tendency to believe everything you say is gospel. If that were the case everyone of your proposal would pass.
You dont have to respond . That’s your choice. But I will continue to lurk the forum and put my two cents in, for whatever its worth.
1 Like
You’re spouting nonsense. And had you taken the time to read through my responses to Frag and Rexyz you’d have noticed your points had already been addressed.
Irrelevant. The problem is you’re throwing AllNodes tweet into the ring as an objective yardstick, when it’s anything but. It’s one thing for a validator to come in here and offer an opinion (which I do encourage), but an entirely another for a community member to try and piggyback their own flawed assumptions off the tweet of a major influence figure (like AllNodes). It’s an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. The fact you can’t grasp this simple truth tells me all I need to know about you.
What “facts”? Everything in that tweet is objectively wrong!
And AllNodes opining on what’s best for small validators is grotesque.
Just because they’re validators doesn’t mean they know what’s best for the network or their own nodes. In fact, most of them are completely clueless. Running a 0% node is a race to the bottom, for all the reasons I’ve outlined in a multitude of posts (do keep ignoring all of them, though!). Allowing 0% fees is the equivalent of incentivizing undercutting in business - it leads to the bottom when every participant is trying to out-screw all the others! Why not set the bar at a sustainable 5%, and allow set wars to commence in a way which benefits the chain? (ie, having validators win VP through superior service and voting records, not via undercutting).
Again, I have written about all of this, yet you choose to rehash the same tired old arguments.
I don’t even know why I’m responding do you… boredom, I suppose. 
The community doesn’t know its face from its ass.
Yeah, sure, because that’s how things are ran in the LUNC community. The same community that pushed influencer-validators to the top of the active set (influencer-validators that don’t even read the props they vote on). The same community that thinks burning the Oracle pool will moon LUNC’s price. The same community that believes USTC can be repegged without drastically redesigning the algostable mechanics. You make me laugh! 
I love your leaps of logic. Those 2 theses are not connected in any way. Also FYI, I am a man of G-d… so, yeah, higher authority and all that! 
Honestly, it’s not worth a lot. Your main problem is trying to discuss your points in a vacuum. Do read through the thread next time before you comment, it helps keep the white noise down to a minimum. 
Shalom!
Stop your crap. You have the reverse Midas Touch that is, The Sadim touch. If your proposals were so wonderful why do they always turn to dust?
If I were you , I would refuse to write proposals. Go find another job. Cant you get it, that your opinions dont really carry much weight in this community. As I have stated in one of my posts, this proposal is your best chance of getting a win, but it will be tight. Good luck on it.
Be careful! I know your type.
Isn’t that a refection on you too? Why do you think your ideas are the only ones that make sense?
Your Answer: "My britches are too small for me.
Your biggest problem is that you cant think outside of the box. Why am I wasting time with you when I have to be working an a solution for re-pegging USTC? Come up with solutions and stop creating problems.
1 Like
In the eyes of the community ,you are just a windbag and a rabble-rouser.
FYI
- I started programming computers 44 years ago-various languages including Machine & Assembly(require logics)- Honestly, I think you need to see an optometrist… You have a vision problem that could only be due to the fact that you have one eye.
- I implement systems including converged networks
- I manage computer systems
- I am a problem solver
I always prove the naysayers wrong.
Well, I suppose we’re blessed to have you as the hivemind that speaks for everyone. 
You earned that with your moronic pedantry and refusal to acknowledge the fact I already addressed all your points in previous replies.
You also keep ignoring the following segment because you have no answer to it:
You turned this back-and-forth into a pissing contest just because you refuse to admit your points were already addressed. But keep pissing, I’ve got more fuel in the tank than you, I can do this all night!
Given how illogical and irrational you seem to be, G-d help us if any of your code makes it into critical infrastructure like an airplane or hydroelectric dam controls!
You do that, friendo. In fact, if you manage to produce a working and robust USTC repeg plan then I’ll be the first one to congratulate you! Because unlike yourself (who apparently keeps flagging my posts), I don’t give a rat’s ass about anything than results. Dunking on spineless midwits notwithstanding, of course.
As to your estrogenic-fueled tirade and appeals to emotion, I’d suggest a TRT regimen accompanied by vigorous weightlifting 3x a week, and short-duration HIIT at least 2x a week. You’re welcome.
Shalom!
Have you implemented any worthwhile computer systems for any organization? You are behaving like a spoilt child that needs attention. You fit the DSM-5 diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder .
Does your continuous ranting remind you of anything in the past?
Your proposal needs a catalyst to help it pass governance . Provide it. Convince people instead of trying to exercise your vocabulary. They are words. They fly in the wind and fade away just like this proposal will, if you dont get the votes. One more of your proposals is looming on the horizon.
Facts: Proposal 11322 as February 6,2023 @ 4:… DST
Yes -33.52%
No. - 46.46%
No with veto. -1.72%
Abstain -18.31%
1 Like
I told you @Dannavan_Morrison, you’re the one who turned this into a pissing contest.
I already answered all your points before you’d started kvetching about them here.
And you still haven’t provided a satisfactory argument against the following:
Ah come on, a little banter never hurt anyone!
Don’t tell me you’re so thin-skinned you can’t handle a bit of heat! 
Props should be judged on their own merits. I’m sorry you think there needs to be outreach and politicking about them, but I couldn’t disagree more; it’s my personal belief people should strip away all the extraneous bullshit and judge props based on their own merits, nothing else. Whether or not the LUNC community does that isn’t up to me.
Shalom!
If this pass i will left community because its voted NO before !
1 Like
This proposal = Big NO ! Its necessary to keep your own choice to select appropriate commission !
Amen
2 Likes
You can facepalm all you want doesn’t change what terra rebels did, and yes, I would vote No because I do not trust Terra Rebels. For me, Terra Rebels is negative karma. Why even add reduced voting power? That’s a separate proposal. 10% only impacts Allnodes. Why not 5%? 8% or 3%? Moving forwards, I hope Terra Rebels prove me wrong; this should be two proposals. If it were, then it would be a yes vote for me. Terra Rebel ignored Binance and that was a big mistake now it’s Allnodes.
1 Like
The proposal that is up on terra station only relates to the commission fee but has nothing to do with lowering the maximum?
The voting power component is still in the deposit phase.