Super work, already voted yes
Itās not white-listed?
Great work Dfunk! you got my vote
For meā¦ the challenge is getting the PRās approved.
I donāt see the issue of just re-enabling staking/adding new validators vs this one.
Iād prefer a fully open chain and for it to set itās own destiny (with new validators entering if need-be)
1 Like
@dfunk this is brilliant. Well done.
2 Likes
Can this be implemented immediately once we have enough votes?
It didnāt take 7 days or any notes to disable it.
1 Like
Thank you!
1 Like
Its kinda blowing my mind that people are voting no with veto, and its not validator votes either. This is a good thing, why vote no?
1 Like
A hold on new validators wont exactly work to prevent malicious activity as stakers can override a validators vote by voting themselves, though i do approve of the proposal. Time will tell what happens i guessā¦
ęēøäæ”ē¤¾åŗļ¼ē»ä½ ęē„Ø
Its interesting that the changes you stated are all to do with only the current validators.
Exclusively to the current validators, lock out new validators for 60 days, Its only fair you stated.
What have you been involved with to help the LUNC community since the DKD?
State them here for community to see please.
The current individuals putting in all the effort and time required to help Lunc are where the thanks should be directed.
You have fear in your statements, you state fairness.
Those that were adversely affected probably thought about fairness. It didnt come to them.
Other forum members would do well to search around and understand the reasons for the exclusivity within this proposal.
1 Like
Thank you so much for the proposal I hope it would pass
Can you please explain what is meant by the āstaking ratioā, what is the ratio currently, what do you consider a āreasonable levelā for the ratio, and what are the consequences if it does not reach this level by day 60? Also, are you a member of the āactive validator setā?
How do I vote on this? I like the idea, but I donāt see the proposal under governance.
change to see all
Hi @dfunk ,
I think this is a positive development. However, what will happen if TFL does not merge the code, is there a contingency plan where the validators would pull directly from the GitHub - terra-rebels/cosmos-sdk: A Framework for Building High Value Public Blockchains repository?
I for one would suggest that if TFL does not allocate resources for this, or decides for other reasons (unless they point out a conflict from the application development side that exists in the code that would cause a problem), that 7 days after direct passage, if the code has not been merged, that at 4pm UTC of that day, that the instructions at the Terra Rebels repository readme at https://github.com/terra-rebels/classic-core#readme be used for upgrade instructions for the validators.
I hope you have a great day 
If 66% of the networkās voting power agrees to re-enabling staking then the āapprovalā would no longer be mandatory.
4 Likes
Thank you so much, duv! I voted yes!
1 Like
even if everyone 100% agrees, someone has to write the code to do so.
this is just a ātextā vote.
The code is written and attached to the proposal
7 Likes