Only respectful discussion will help us move forward 
I like this dual governance idea. I believe crucial decisions for the blockchain should stay with the current model, one vote per coin. But decisions which mostly affect the community, for example which protocols get funding and which donât, should be in the communityâs hands. 1 vote per community member, we just need to think of a way to define what a community member is, and a way to prove it in order to cast a vote 
Do you think itâs a good idea to implement this dual governance system on terra.station? Or should the âcommunityâ vote be done on a separate platform? I appreciate your opinions!
As I understand it Terra Station is still controlled by the TFG. Not sure it is a good idea to let them be in control of the future. I think the more LUNC can separate from LUNA and the baggage of the past, the better off we are. I would like one system to go to for governance, staking, etc. But how the voting model works now in Terra Station seems limited. You can only vote binary for the most part. I think to speed things up we need a voting system that allows for choices like pick A, B, C or None. Or if voting for board members, letting you âpick 2 or the 5 possible choicesâ. As far a defining community member, I would fully support 1 vote per actual person but the key is figuring out how we do that without having to dox everyone.
1 Like
There are ways to do that (proving you are human a without dox) and many devs and projects are working on the best solutions! I agree, the voting system could be way better! Even terra.station seems old already, it could have a better, modernized interface. We are already working on better front-end solutions to interact with the blockchain.
I donât think whales will vote to change the voting system unless the whole community pressures them to. I believe that having the community pool controlled by the community would be a good first step in order to achieve true decentralization of power. 
2 Likes
Power to the people. Community need more power to vote in the community pool⊠come on community vote yes to have the power in your own hands
2 Likes
That is just how the mind of the majority works. The IF statement is never understood, and they want everything served and ready, without any steps to take, thoughts to make⊠Simply, ignore the fud if you got the stomach for it and work on the improvement. Have the proper network of people if you need them, and that is all there is.
1 Like
Thatâs true. It seems that a big part of the community just wants to delegate all their power because they donât know how to code. They treat devs and whales like god-like figures. I believe this is a great mistake, since sometimes the herder is a wolf. I want to wake up as many minds as possible to this reality. You donât need to know how to code or to be rich to have valuable ideas. Also I believe that if we delegate the funds to a small group of people, they will become lazy eventually since there is no accountability, this would not happen if you needed to have the community on your side in order to get funding. It would also force leadership to be more honest and transparent.
2 Likes
Remember - Satoshi was no coderâŠ
2 Likes
Depends what motives the groups or individuals have. I personally hate to be grouped as one of those who will retire and cool the balls somewhere in the sea by the beach for the rest of my life. I know what I would do. 1. Try a PHD on a floating point numbers on blockchain smart-contract as well as complex math for minimal gas fees. 2. Do the no-computation money transfer technology⊠But anyway, lets see what happens with LUNC first.
1 Like
Here is where they also mention Identity services:
1 Like
It should not be like that. That only gives power to the rich.
It is not balanced or fair. There is no fairness and truthfulness in the votes.
The vote must be unique and with a system that guarantees its veracity and validity
2 Likes
@Vendrugo - Voting must be unique and have a system that guarantees its truthfulness and validity, without it there is no way to go any further, until we achieve this, nothing will change, and talking about democracy will be a cliche.
As for restricting members by their resources, definitely NOT, because Someone like Vitalik Buterin was a simple poor student from Waterloo Canada from Russia, and would probably not have the right to vote if we accepted this proposal.
Therefore, all you need to do is build a system that guarantees truthfulness and indisputability without budgetary constraints for members of the community.
The vote should not favor whoever has more money.
Regardless of whether itâs Vitalik, Elon or the eternal father.
2 Likes
Buy more LUNC, increase your influence.This is the only way to prove your loyalty to our community.People with large blocks of shares are elected to the board of directors.
Only such people can responsibly resolve serious issues - they risk their capital.
Is it possible to allow irresponsible, inexperienced people who have not invested their capital in LUNC tokens to manage?
Such irresponsible and inexperienced people will quickly ruin our community.
Sorry but you are talking nonsense. People with large blocks of shares can be also irresponsibly and inexperienced. âWealthâ doesnât make such people clever or wiseâŠ
2 Likes
I LUNCbananas endorse this proposal
1 Like
I have enough Lunc, but I do not agree that due to the number of my Lunc I have the power to change a vote for or against a proposal. I am also against the vote being visible, any validator moments before finalizing a proposal can change its course if its vote is decisive for it to pass or be denied. It can also influence the decision of many by following the majority vote. I mean if others vote yes they will vote yes too.
Also note that most validators never vote. Which doesnât seem right to me.
Here we are not talking about management positions or who has more shares of a company. It is about a community. Of thousands of people who have invested in a project. Why should only take into account who has put more money? Divisions, hierarchies, castes, etc. must be ended.
Also medium and low investors put their money at risk.
You are promoting a design that is akin to historically that only land owners could vote. Owning land took wealth and therefore prevented the peasants from voting. This is a setup to allow whales to manipulate LUNC for their benefit which may not be in the best interest for the rest of the community. And regardless of if you have invested $1,000,000 or $1,000 or $100 you have put money at risk when buying LUNC. In the end, the only way to ensure democracy and that the big donât overpower the small is to move to a one vote per person model. Not one vote per coin owned, not one vote per wallet, but one vote per individual and to not let validators vote at all.
1 Like
I currently only have 5,000,000 LUNC. However, I was going to buy another 50,000,000 - 100,000,000, because the price is still sensational - and prapobly will be strong corect - up, you can see it on the stock exchanges. Sometimes the value of our token itself differs on different exchanges by up to 10%.
However, if we intend to divide the community into the wealthy and the less prosperous. Iâm not going into this and leavie the 5,000,000 to be torn apart - to the sharks. The world is looking at YOU - I WATCH ! What I see here are more and more bloodthirsty and thirsty beasts âŠ
1 Like
Having little capital does not mean that you are inexperienced, its seems that you believe poor people are irresponsible while the wealthy are responsible. May I ask why you believe this? I am sure there are both responsible and irresponsible community members, but by giving each one 1 vote, they will even out to an acceptable level of risk.
We canât agree in a simple forum, imagine how it would be if we have to decide on a project. We all have ideas that we think can be positive or negative depending on the circumstances, but who of all or the vast majority of us here have the knowledge to take forward a project like this. I am one of those who think that, as if it were a company, the entrepreneur is not the one who knows everything, the entrepreneur is the one who pays for the person with the necessary knowledge to carry out his dream, his project. Therefore, I think we should do the same, pay those people who have the necessary knowledge to take this project forward again, Iâm talking about, developers, marketing, accountants, etcâŠ
Of course I understand that the community must have transparency on what and where everyoneâs money is spent.
2 Likes