But is a “hurried” concensus the right kind of concensus?
We are currently in a state of Anarchy. We are the very definition of it.
We want rules without rulers.
We want leadership, without leaders.
We want Decentralized Law.
How is this even achievable?
We believe this is achievable with debate. Debate between independent actors and factions let good ideas come out and flourish. We should not hurry concensus too much, but there should be some sort of system to free us from inaction. Inaction and indifference are our true enemys. Debate and fighting is good as long as it is channeled into progress. Currently a lot of voices are being censored in the community, everyone who is a part of it knows this.
We can debate whilst we get things done. But we can’t get things done whilst we debate. ie The current situation we find ourselves in.
We can debate future matters with a “coning” process ultimately leading to the point of decision making.
Debating by it’s very nature is an infinite process, thus we can’t debate every single minute detail either. We can’t hold a general election or send the board of directors out shopping, every time we need a bag of coffee filters.
Some sort of a semblance of an administrative governing body must be formed for this to succeed.
Lunc governance is not programmed right now to work the way you propose
First you should propose a change to governance for it to operate the way you like
Then we have to convince capable developers to program the changes, and validators to accept the changes, as I understand
This could take weeks at a minimum
And it serves as an example of why decentralized government isn’t appropriate for every element of planning and development for a chain like $lunc
@Santista I have to agree with GrinSpickett. However, what I do not agree with is that it takes weeks to do the voting. The problem with the voting is the voting mechanism that has not been solved… that is, how do we make people vote knowing who they are (no duplicate voting) but have their privacy intact. That itself is a contradiction, and the closest what we have to a solution is a Whalecracy (as you mentioned). This is why it is important to have a variety of validators, as many as possible, all having the money somewhat equally distributed… which we don’t, but that is another topic. Another person mentioned burning the money, and I do agree with it. In my humble opinion only, it should be used to help the victims of the crash or just sent to an account without the private key. This could also be a social experiment to see how we act and whether the larger investments and effort is worth it… Like throwing the food to a bunch of hungry people to see them fight over it and what happens at the end. It is sick, and I would not like to have anything with it. RETURN IT, BURN IT or LOCK IT. Those are the only best options.
"Consider how you might prove a claim (e.g., “I am a citizen of X country”) to another party (e.g., a service provider). You’d need to provide “evidence” to back up your claim, such as a national passport or driver’s license. But there are problems with this approach, chiefly the lack of privacy. Personally Identifiable Information (PII) shared with third-party services is stored in central databases, which are vulnerable to hacks.
Zero-knowledge proofs solve this problem by eliminating the need to reveal information to prove validity of claims. The zero-knowledge protocol uses the statement (called a ‘witness’) as input to generate a succint proof of its validity. This proof provides strong guarantees that a statement is true without exposing the information used in creating it." -Ethereum foundation.
I believe it might be possible with a zero-knowledge KYC. Check this out:
People are already working on it. I believe it might be possible, we are all already KYCd by our respective goverments. I would not mind a decentralized, encrypted, secret KYC to make my vote count! Currently you need to be a whale to have any weight. We should consider other aspects of a community member in order to decide its voting power. Thank you for your response and time! 
So the rich get to rule… Sounds great👎🏼
“[The system] involves a trusted third party validating my personal information … ”
See, that is the problem. We can’t just use a trusted third party to have a decentralized network. Bio metric readings could generate the unique hash, per person, but it means that you’d have to either purchase a device or record yourself somehow to unlock the identity. This can be done without sharing the information, for example, face has 30-40 points that are unique, and voice-print can be analyzed too. So instead of sharing that data, you just share the hash (which then can be requested to confirm the identity when needed).
But, given the current state of Terra Rebels, this is just far-fetched.
Back to the Basics
The core design of TC is being ignored while who gets paid what dominates community discussions while all we need is a stable core to hold the supplies of Lunc & USTC in place and give them value (scarcity/limited) ~ devs will come and develop at their own expenses if we can build that core…
None of the popular leaders of this community have put up any core design proposals ~ if they have, I haven’t seen them and would love to! A few validators (popular leaders) kept going after the crash (earlier this year) and eventually implemented a burn tax… I appreciate them keeping the chain going but they are far from Satoshi…
So, why don’t we end the PoS dilemma and build the best core in the business:
Penalizing the community for disagreeing… How do you see the money management proposal being presented? You can’t ask everyone to agree 
As I said, I think the best way will be a managerial statement for the next quarter and then community approval, as the more people have a say in something, the more problems there will be and if they don’t know what to do with the money by now, let them give it to me, I’ll take my wife and kid on vacation 
That is the problem with this proposal. Only those that can afford 1 million coins get to vote. True right now that is only around $250 USD but what happens when the coin hits $0.01? Plus depending on where in the world you live, $250 USD can be a sizeable amount. This is one of the issues with a pure decentralization of voting - more coins equals more votes, people with more income have more power. Ultimately whales will control all the voting. Even with this proposal more money equates to more control but it has zero bearing on how much you believe in LUNC or want it to succeed. For many, this is a pure investment and they actually make money if it drops in price.
Buy 4M dollars of Luna in open market and Burn it, 400k will end up in the comunnity pool and can be used to fund deves.
You’re being irrationally critical ~ the idea that started this discussion is the search for a middle ground, and it seems we found one.
I think all members of the community should decide. Both, lunc and ustc.
You are right that is it far from perfect. My proposal is just a draft, we are thinking of a way to give every community member an equal weight vote. We strongly believe that how much money you have should not be the only thing that matters when it comes to voting on how the funds will be used and it would be better if each one of us had 1 vote. In order to do this we need to find a way to define a community member and give each one of them a community pool governance NFT, that can only be minted by a human being. What do you think the minimum requirements in order to cast a vote should be? Thank you for your response.
There has to be ‘skin in the game’ to prevent attacks by groups of bad actors… there must be something to deter people from acting with malicious intent.
Equality & System Core Protection
Let’s say a competing currency and ecosystem wants to get TC out of the way (eliminate the competition) ~ how do we prevent that organization from paying people to vote for malicious propositions? Maybe maintaining a strong supporting community is the only answer ~ as it is in the real world ~ if we want any sort of equality in governance…
Untouchable, Solid, & Stable Core Design
Even if TC whales are in control, bigger whales - who wants to take out TC - could move in and outvote the TC whales… Maybe developing a solid and stable core that can only be adjusted (through governance) if a problem shows itself in its design. That would protect the core no matter the equality of governing powers… of course, it’s all about designing and protecting a stable core that keeps the values of the currencies by keeping them scarce, secure in holders possessions, and easy & quick to transfer!
Here’s my core design:
I like having civil discussions so thank you and I don’t pretend to be an expert here, just my thoughts from being in both business and software development (not crypto). I really think we need a dual governance model. We need to go to a vote of the full community for all the major issues. For instance, things like do we repeg to USTC or do the alt-coin thing? Do we reopen IBC or not? What should the burn tax rate be? The kinds of things where a month or two of good discussion isn’t an issue and are do not require being a technical expert in blockchain development. More business issue, long term vision issues, the goals for the coin. One vote per coin, no validators voting. I could be tempted to go 1 vote per wallet or certainly 1 vote per individual if we can figure out a way to confirm each person without doxing. Then we need a way to handle the day to day crap that happens with any project. Managing resources, deciding to hire someone new or fire someone existing, confirming development deadlines are met as are standards, giving a bonus to someone who can show they worked 40 extra hours in a week or giving a 2% raise to a developer who is going beyond all expectations. Those kinds of things can’t be bogged down by a general vote each time. Nothing will get done. For that we need a management board. A board where members a nominated by the community and voted on by the community. These members would need to be fully doxed and list any potential conflicts of interest. Needs to be big enough to be diverse in skills and attitudes but no to big to be unwieldly. The members need to have overlapping terms of service so not all change at once so we have continuity and after their term they can be renominated and voted upon or not. Then this group is given a mandate and rules about what they can or cannot do, big picture on what they can or cannot spend on, etc. Then they deal with the day-to-day stuff while anything outside of their mandate goes back to the general community for a vote. I think that gives the community control but deals with the fact that sometimes decisions need to be made NOW and not a month from now.