You do what you gotta do.
where can we see who voted yes or no. I certainly would like to leave any validators who said yes.
2 Likes
These are currently the validators who voted YES for: Raise Validator Minimum Commission Fee to 5%
- Orion
- TCB
- StakeBin
- BTC Secure
- Classy‘s Sphere
- moonshot
- HappyCattyCrypto
- CryptoPlant
- Lux Blockchain Validators
- SafePoint
- Target Nodes
- Stakely.io
- PFC
- stake.systems
- LunaPunks
- Nova
- 8moon
- OneStar
- 0% Lunc Repeg Club
- Peace-Freedom
- Lunc Community Italia
- Lunc-VALIDATOr
- Lunc_nymph
- MCF
- Toxic Labs Dao
- Luna Rewards
- Ginkou
- Crypto🔗Genesis
- Orbital Command
- 0base.vc
- NeXT
- LunCTTs.com
- Diamond Nodes
- AuraStake
- LevatharNode
- blockscape
- kytzu
- Forbole
- MR GIVEAWAY
- KK Validator
- thecryptoplatform.io
- Oneiric Stake
- CatalystiX.CC
5 Likes
And if this should pass, what becomes of the three validators that have a max commission under 5%.
Max commission is not something that is able to be changed by a validator.
1 Like
Why would you hate on children? That’s super messed up! 
Already am… for better or worse. 
Google is your friend. 
Nope. One prop already passed - now it’s time for the second. 
Then they’d have to do 10x the work required to market them. And most people wouldn’t migrate to the new(er) nodes. So your overall argument is extremely weak. 
Good. A little disunity is a small price to pay for nudging the chain in the right direction.
That’s your opinion, and isn’t backed up by facts.
You do you. 
So? Stop treating the free market like some kind of deity. Sometimes it needs correcting.
Lmao, that your argument? First, this is an appeal to authority. And second, most IRL states are extremely inefficient, dysfunctional, and downright dystopian. If you love them so much then kindly leave crypto and return to the IRL fiat prison. 
Well, given the 5% prop passed only minutes ago, I’d say you’re wrong. The community voted for this, so you are the one who seems to be in the minority.
Shalom! 
For clarification purposes, while I posted strongly against the proposer in other threads on different topics, here I only posted twice, giving one post each with my view directly relating to each proposal he made, and I voted with my validator JESUSisLORD NO and not NO WITH VETO.
As is the nature of a democracy, the community decides, and even though I do not agree, the community has decided to support and pass his 5% minimum commission proposal. The community has approved a governance price floor, which I believe to be anti free-market.
While this could be compared to something like a minimum wage, I believe this is different, as being a validator is a voluntary endeavour which should be subject to free-market principles to provide diverse options to delegators.
I believe this is a mistake, but whether there will be any appetite in the future for a repeal remains to be seen. We have repealed proposals as a community in the past, such as minting. I support a repeal of this proposal and would vote YES to such an initiative.
6 Likes
I posted the pictures because you claimed I was part of a hate squad against you in this thread when I only posted twice with a few words.
Yes I became a validator knowing fully well I would run at a loss, and so did all the other validators when they started. No one was forcing them to become a validator, it was voluntary in every case.
It’s not secret information the image you shared, it was posted on my Twitter and Validator Telegram group.
I gave advanced communication to my delegators as I may have needed to change to 5% commission due to an unexpected change (4x) in my hosting costs once I hit 2% VP. On my present plan I was fine to stay at 1% which I preferred.
Even though I may have needed to change to 5% under those conditions, I don’t agree with forcing 5% on all validators for the reasons I already stated.
No I won’t be proceeding to push for a repeal now, the community just voted and your proposal passed.
It took the community 20 days to repeal the 50% mint after we almost lost Binance, and nearly 3 months to repeal the minting altogether from its inception. There will need to be time to see the negative effects from this proposal.
3 Likes
If you had any decency… Wow, all I can say is that although I do find your humor funny at times, you have at other times been anything but funny. You calling for decency when you have at times been less than decent is a bit ironic to put it mildly. Just some food for thought…
4 Likes
Aahahaha I love it when fools get nuked from orbit and cry about it! Well, you sure changed your tone quickly! You went from bluster to groveling in the span of, what, less than 2 hours? Mmhhh… I hope you’ve learned your lesson - show more humility in the future! 
Sure you did, sure you did… 
First, if you’re so keen to run at a loss then why would you raise your fees?
Stay at 1% and run in the red if you love it so much, lmao.
Second, you can’t (and shouldn’t) speak for other validators.
I never said it was secret. I posted it to highlight your hypocrisy.
Still doesn’t make you any less of a hypocrite.
Your reasoning is paper-thin… and I really was hoping you’d put up more of a fight.
Then again, I completely eviscerated you, so as much is to be expected I suppose. 
Good. You’re not completely dense.
I usually take no pleasure in dismantling midwits, but you were so persistent and annoying that I’d be lying if I said nuking your arguments didn’t bring me pleasure. Still not worth the effort, though; the active set is poorer with you having an almost 1% VP stake within it… oh well, one step at a time, I suppose.
Tuck your tail between your legs and run along now, we’re done here.
Shalom!
The best thing for this community is for everyone staking Lunc to vote instead of giving their voting power to the validators they delegate to.
Earn rewards and keep things decentralized by staking & participating.
2 Likes
Anyone who doesn’t think like you is stupid? 
Very clever words. you are too arrogant. my first job will be to get out of this chain
May I know what you have developed? I would appreciate if you give information without insulting
I think it was a mistake to approve this offer. validators will not be able to cover their own expenses. They will close and exit the system.
It seems highly likely that we will move to a capitalism and centralized system. it’s a risk.
Proposals that need to be approved may not be approved, the developer team may become inoperable.
There is no such method in any chain. you did a good job, we have achieved a first.
I no longer support this chain.
1 Like
I agree with you 100%. Problem is, most people stake and forget.
It’s the same with IRL governance - people are lazy, and want others to do their thinking for them.
You have the reading comprehension of a lobotomized squirrel.
Re-read what I wrote: I don’t have a problem debating with people, regardless of their opinion or knowledge base, as long as they argue in good faith and are polite. Most aren’t, so they get the less than courteous treatment.
That’s irrelevant to the props I put up. Judge them on their own merits.
Take it up with everyone who voted.
Funding for the L1 team is in no way tied to the proposals in this thread.
Good! Sell your LUNC and move on with your life.
Shalom!
You’re not even a validator but you seem to think you can speak of all validators, but when I say something as a validator that’s not okay.
Most of your words to me are just chaff, especially your demonic boasting, but keep going it’s more a demonstration of your character to the community than anything else.
What I said to my delegators is not hypocrisy. I voted NO on this proposal and was fully prepared to deal with my unexpected rise in hosting costs when I hit 2% VP, without forcing 5% on the rest of the validator community.
LUNC should be a free-market as possible without unnecessary and burdensome restrictions, hence the decentralised nature of LUNC without a centralised leadership. Your proposal goes against this.
5% minimum validator fee removes the element of competition to do with commission rates between validators. Now instead of some 0%, some 1%, some 5%, now we will have everyone at 5% and no distinguishing edge and competition over commission rate is available anymore.
Also delegators are worse off because they get less choice and have to pay more, rather than choosing if they feel going with a 5% validator is worth it to them for the service they provide.
Also what are you going to do about the validators who cannot raise their commission to 5% due to having a lower maximum commission? Are you going to propose another tombstone proposal to further divide the community?
Hopefully in time the community will see these points and your proposal will be overturned.
3 Likes
Why are you twisting my statements? I said you can’t and shouldn’t speak for other validators.
You’re implying I care what the community thinks of me. Unlike you and all the other clout-chasers, I give 0 shits about that. My self-appointed task here is to write proposals that I believe will help the blockchain, and I want people to judge said props on their own merits, not based off how much they (dis)like me. Whether or not that happens isn’t my problem - I write and publish, y’all do the voting.
You’re a total hypocrite because you knew you’d have to hike up your commission rate to break even, yet you tried to bury the 5% MCF proposal despite realizing how much of a lifeline it was for small validators like your own, all while prepping your community for a fee hike to keep yourself afloat. Just accept that you’re a hypocritical dick, and move on.
Here, lemme remind you (because my previous post is now hidden):
By that logic every single proposal the L1 Task Force puts up should be vetoed instantly. Full decentralization is a meme, there’ll always be a degree of control there. You can rage against this all you want, but at the end of the day all we’re doing here is clashing over our opinions. And unlike you, I’m pretty open about it - I think a certain change would be beneficial, so I try to write a prop and get it passed (either solo, or with the help of someone else). Meanwhile people like you take the moronic stance that they’re representing some nebulous ideals like the “free market” or “decentralization”, when at the end of the day all we’re doing is clashing over OPINIONS. But hey, I wouldn’t expect anything other than sheer hubris and dogmatic zealotry from a religious absolutist like yourself, so why am I even surprised?
See, this is the thing that absolutely pisses me off. I answered that same question in my responses to Frag and Rexyz earlier in the thread, and you didn’t even read it. You probably skipped most of the thread, because hey man, you’re ordained by G-d himself, so you know best, right? The sheer fucking hubris!
Here, lemme crush your “argument” (for the 10th time in this thread):
- allowing 0% fees kills small validators by forcing them to run in the red
- raising the fee to 5% forces the entire active set into a self-sustainable plateau
- ongoing set wars shift away from undercutting, and toward more productive differentiation
- validators can and should fight for VP by offering better service, not by undercutting each other
- competitive edge can be gained through other factors (PR, hardware/uptime, voting patterns, etc.)
- by removing 0% fees, no entrenched validator can abuse them to starve smaller validators
- by removing 0% fees, any new validator coming into the active set can’t abuse them to gain VP
- many Cosmos chains have minimum commission fees, and they’re still going strong
- the first group of people against this change are folks like yourself who don’t understand it
- the second group against it are newest validators who missed out on the 0% gravy train
- regardless of which node holds how much VP, it’s beneficial for the chain to enforce 5%
- the free market can suck my schmeckle, the chain’s stability and longevity come first!
This is the LAST friggin’ time I’ll be explaining this!
READ THE WHOLE THREAD BEFORE POSTING YOUR IDIOTIC “OPINION(S)”!
They still get a choice, only it’ll now start at 5% and upwards.
Possibly. Hopefully not, though. I’m sure Ed and the L1 can figure something out.
Worst-case scenario they’ll just sunset their current validators and migrate to new ones.
I doubt it. Feel free to try, though.
Shalom!
Perhaps we should propose funding community outreach programs that encourage delegators (example; through announcements while delegating) to vote along with the reasons why they should vote.
1 Like
Yeah you’ve stated similar things before how you don’t care about the community. Character is important as I’ve said before.
No that’s not hypocrisy. I am sticking to my principles which is that LUNC should be as free market as possible without unnecessary restrictions. I communicated with my delegators to let them know I may need to rise to 5% due to needing to take on an enterprise level plan at 2% VP. If I denied my own principles and voted YES because I needed the money then I’d be a hypocrite.
Validators for example, up to 0.5% VP only pay $480 a month or 0.5% to 2% VP $980 per month. This may be less for independent validators. Like I said every validator who starts knows what they are getting into, which I know full well as I started my validator recently.
That’s ridiculous as the L1 team’s proposals must be voted on by the community, and they are operating under a community mandate to deliver work for quarter one. If the L1 team could bypass governance to enforce their own changes that would be a problem, but it’s not a problem because proposals go through governance.
Small validators can choose to be at 5% commission if they want nothing is stopping them. Yes they may rise slower in rankings and delegates but that’s their choice. Yes forcing 5% does profit validators and allow them to most likely run without a loss, and at certain voting power allows them significant income.
Price differentiation by commission rate is a valid strategy, and this is undue and inappropriate regulation, and I hope the community will see this.
2 Likes
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
This topic was automatically opened after 28 hours.
Thank you, every single one of my validators were on that list so I redelegated away from all of them. What urks me is that each one of them that voted yes had 0% in their name indicating they wanted 0% commission. Then they go vote yes?!?! hell nawwww
5 Likes
Achievements that aren’t really achievements.
Let’s see! 
This “achievement” you have shown here, is like giving candy to a child.
Most would accept it. Since it is a gift 
, very tasty. The minimum 5% (the big achievement) is that candy for the validators. Those very sweet-tooths accepted it. Those who know that candy ultimately causes harm refused to receive it. Simple, Trutht? 
The same thing happened with what they proposed from the team that accompanies you, that of allocating 50% of the burns for development… there were sweet-tooths who voted yes. Then they realized that it had gone down badly. Binance gave an announcement and the sweet-tooths had to back down. 
Very simple.
This 5% minimum proposal is logical that it would pass although it will eventually fall badly. 
What was sought here with this proposal, is to try to propose vulgar things to gain the trust of those who are ignorant of how things are handled on the chain and of previous misleading proposals.
Could it be that this time they had “less luck”?
Will “luck” have something to do with all this?
The veracity of what I say is what follows. The proposal that was chained to the 5% proposal will be a resounding NO and all those who went along with this proposal to limit the power of validators by 10% will lose their money. This candy was very ugly and is not to the liking of the validators and a large part of the community.
As is the case with the other proposal of the same authors, which is not even reaching the minimum deposit to go out to vote. It seems that nobody dares to put their money in that proposal. Isn’t it?
The validators only took what was convenient. That is not an achievement. Also, validators who don’t want to get that money for running their business could burn some of that percentage.
If before they had 0% or 2% commissions, once the 5% minimum commission is implemented, they could burn 5% or 3% so that in this way, these validators have a plus when choosing them for the community staking.
In conclusion.
I am sorry for those who will lose their money, with nonsense proposals that go against the decentralized spirit and free choice in the Terra Classic ecosystem.
Every day the community is more mature 
. Thanks Rabbi and team for that help.
As I always say. The truth always pushes to come to light. 
Namasté.
2 Likes