Reclaiming to the community the Off-Chain Community Assets


Retrieve the assets of the Terra Classic Community Ethereum Crosschain Multisig , holding +- $4.17 million dollars  of non-Terra assets, to the Terra Classic Community pool.


The Terra Classic Community votes to recover possession of the funds inside the ethereum crosschain multisig wallet [0x9538D438d506Fc426dB37fb83daC2a0752A02757] (“TC Community MultiSigs”) , by proposing for the actual owners of the multisign wallet to sell the funds and buy back lunc and after that sending that lunc to the community wallet.

is my believe that this funds belong to the community itself, so they should go directly to the community pool.
regarding the mechanism that can be used for distribution of this funds to the devs etc , well that is already in place , on the governance is a option for community pool spend.
this mechanism if follow the guidelines it works very well.
I will give one example : lets say that a group of devs is working on, lets say updating the tendermint and this is crucial for the success of the chain, but they need founds to keep working.(I don’t blame them working for free sucks) , so following the guide lines they will open a agora forum for discussion ,detailing the update that they are working on, and explaining the budget that they need. after that they will apply for a community pool spend ,linking the agora forum topic ,they will then whitelist the proposal for reaching the all community.
We can add a level of security on top of all of this that is the propose by Prof. Ed Kim on 8813 that is the Terra Grants Program . lets say that we need to keep the endpoints on , and we need live cash every months, it can be propose like I sate on the top ,and instead of the need of every month taking x, this could be done as a annual budget, by just sending x amount to a multisign wallet, ( in my view this multsig can be controlled by the team of the proposal 8813 the Terra Grants Program , or it can be elected by governance vote), after that a smart contract can be created , were it states that no more than x/12 on the end of each month can be taken from that wallet. A emergency wallet can as well be created after passes governance proposal , with the same mechanism that I already stated , this funds should only be moved in extreme cases , like a need of live cash to patch a specific can as well be created a suggestion of annual budget for the chain, like 25% of community pool is always for the layer one developing , 25% can be for allocation of reserves in case of emergency , 25% can go to pay devs that are maintain the chain and the rest can be for marketing , and second layer projects.
this is just a example not to be taken in full, I believe that the community can organize them self’s to take care of there own funds. I trust the community, like I always did. This being said I understand the need of creation of a agile mechanism for the funds to be moved in clear cases like maintaining the chain , emergency’s etc, that is way I give the previous example.

In case of the current owners of the multisign wallet decline swapping the funds to lunc and sending them to the community pool, than we will have the need to create a team to be the new signatures for the wallet. this new team will have as unique goal to send the funds to the community pool, I personally believe that this can be done by Ed ( if he accepts )and is team of the Terra grant program but if the community prefers, I can be done by directly nominees from the this case because of the nature of this funds is advise to have some sort of assurance of legal protection
Some money set aside for protection.

related to the topic , DK says what ever the community decides should be fine. the currents owners stated The current multisig won’t be doing any swapping and market buying LUNC.
if they don’t change there minds it seems that a new team will need to be nominated to do this for them. This team will have the goal of swapping the assets to lunc and sending them to the community pool.


I support this proposal, paying 45k dollars a month for the 9 members just to manage the fund I think is too much.

If I were to pay them to code, I would have my support, I know that no one works for free forever.

And another I don’t trust alex, he seems to be very unstable, anything that contradicts him he comes out attacking cursing people.


Convert the 4m into Lunc?Kinda risky.What if LUNC goes back at 0.00005?We would loose a lot of money .It will be full of proposal and arguing on the future devs work and acces to funds.


Recover possession of the funds inside the ethereum crosschain multisig wallet 0x9538D438d506Fc426dB37fb83daC2a0752A02757, convert the ETH to LUNC, then burn it all. Then, use what’s currently in the community pool to pay a developer to code a stable core (hold Lunc & USTC together stably) by adding an appropriately tuned circuit breaker, to curb abrupt price changes…

1 Like

That would be wasted money lol.Stop with this burn every funds we have.We need utility and paid devs.


I fully agree with the proposal.


I can’t stop, it’s too good of a plan.


Since the market cap gets divided into the circulating supply ~ lessening the circulating supply reduces the division of that market cap = each Lunc (unit) is worth more… so, it’s not ‘a waste’ to burn Lunc. There is also already a growing community fund for developing TC’s core. I think people with no ideas and minor-league skills are just trying to get their hands on cash, typical… :skull_and_crossbones:




This is a good solution for these funds. I am 100% agree.


No bad idea %10 burn back community pool very big, only burn it or dont steal


Stop thinking throwing money at things will fix them ~ that thinking never works! We need to use what is in our growing community pool to code a stable core ~ that should be our focus, in addition to burning all we can.

Quick update the current owners of the multisgn are not going to do the swap for lunc , so the only option will be giving the keys to a elect group of ppl. With this in mind I believe that that group of ppl should have as only goal ,the recovery of this funds to the community pool.


İ see only lunc this whales steal pools and old team wallet
İf you touch funds careful for lawsuit



@413x_45h4w told that several times, and you insist saying the same thing. You don’t help people to understand their available and realistic choices offered by the current signers. So, edit your proposal, which is not very well written by the way, and state clearly that the multisig wallet cannot be converted or swapped to any other currency or token, but only change its signers. Additionally, state clearly what do you propose? Other signers than the ones @413x_45h4w suggested in his proposal? Because it seems that is the main problem here. Lower wages for the signers? Edit your proposal and write it clearly in plain words, because you are not helping at all.


Appreciate your feedback . Maybe I don’t expressed myself in the best way.but the problem is not the signers itself ,I respect them all.the problem is the destination of the funds.i believe that the signers of this multisig should send this to the community wallet.


This is a really bad proposal for many reasons!

Currently not yet convinced that converting it to LUNC will be the best way. Some points why I’m not in favor are.

  • Currently these assets are offchain assets consisting of eth and other assets. Consider the possible volatility of LUNC we might lose value of this 4m without really using it.
  • Devs we want to hire could be in favor of not being paid in LUNC, for example the work being done on IBC… restoring parity… porting dApps from LUNA2 to LUNC.
  • Ideas brought in for money from this pool will pass the 9 signers whom I all respect and think they will do good by us. Sure it’s a bit of a trust me bro, but the guys up there all have my support to lead the way for us.

We will be more scalable if we just go ahead with the proposal proposed by Alex with the 9 signers. Yes, DK says what ever the community decides is fine, he did not nor will he, direct on the thing which is wisest to do. Claiming these funds for the community pool, imho, is not a smart thing to do.


Why should we trust the new members more the the 9 we already have? Can u give use a guarantee?


We need solid decision making and adding it to the community pool just means it takes too many people with differing opinions to make decisive action, hence nothing gets done. In the great scheme of things $4 mil isn’t a great deal of money compared to what the blockchain will be worth if it really gets back to its former glory.