Let’s actually throw it out L1. Do something like that. Shame. And let them return the money.@Bilbo
1 Like
Yes its correct man. People just go straight to their L1 buddies when stuff needs done - no need to ask governance, why bother.
3 Likes
As requested, I have put up a “No Confidence” Vote for the Current L1 Team:
10 Likes
This isnt a LUNC community issue. Its TerraCVita’s issue and anyone else involved with the dex (including some $TERRA investors).
Its a PRIVATE DEX not a community dex. Its not owned by the LUNC community.
What you want to do is insert malicious code that could be used to r-u-g the entire LUNC blockchain.
No thanks.
Oh and P.S. I had a stake in Terraport as a private investor. I consider those funds gone until I receive compensation as a victim of a crime.
6 Likes
WHAT THE HELL IS THIS???
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORD DECENTRALIZED MEANS…?
You f–ed it up, you fix it.
NO WITH VETO
9 Likes
#preach brother.
Away, bunglers on kicks.
2 Likes
Objectively speaking, this proposal’s title should be To create a centralized multsig wallet that can be controlled by select individuals with the power to blacklist and lockdown any address on the chain.
While vetoing this proposal I came to realize how unethical and disgusting the proposal tries to frame itself as “saving” terraport funds such that if one votes No or Vetoes it - does that mean they don’t support saving these stolen funds? Of course not. Many validators support the rescue of terraport stolen funds (I mean who wouldn’t?)
Here is a proposal to truly save the funds that will not destroy the integrity and sovereignty of the chain:
Have TCV, and anyone who has sold the project to the lunc community to use their own money to buy back the LUNC and UST that have been stolen, on the open market, and then reimburse these funds back to the community who invested in Terraport.
16 Likes
Regarding this Prop:
There are some obvious concerns like @HappyCattyCrypto brought up in his video that if we save people here, everyone who gets their money stolen in the future will be entitled to also be saved.
In addition to these points, in the course of my investigation of over 40 hours into Terraport I believe I identified gross negligence or worse by the Terraport team. (TLDR for this, more detailed info and evidence shown in videos on my YT channel)
Terraport supposedly raised around $3.5-$5M so its not like they cannot make community members whole on the funds lost. The way I view it is that this is not really about saving customer funds, but rather a bailout for Terraport.
TLDR on my findings:
-
30M tokens ($6M) in private sale that were not supposed to be there. Supposed to be 40M (according to whitepaper) and its actually 70m according to the blockchain.
-
44M tokens in private sale (yes more than entire private sale is supposed to be) have connections of varying degrees back to the team. Not just the one attacker, but 3 main wallets. Two connnect to Lunc Italia, 1 with a current team members name connect to it.
-
All those tokens in the private sale have been earning 90% APR that they shouldn’t be earning. This is about $15,000 worth of tokens every day being distributed to wallets connected to the team that shouldn’t be there.
-
Rexyz knew about point 1-3 and did not see any need to resolve this.
-
21M Marketing tokens ($4.2M) also connected to those team wallets. Appears to potentially be another Whitepaper violation but some possible explanations.
-
Hardcoded wallets in smart contracts for the LPs (Showed in a video how anyone with internet access and Notepad++ can see this)
-
Hardcoded wallets seem to go back to February 20th in testing (over 1 month before launch)
-
Connections between dev wallets and the wallets that drained LPs. Attacker was insider (said by TCV)
-
Rexyz was warned about security issues before the attack and dismissed it as FUD.
-
Probably missing some things, but do I really need to keep going?
Terraport has the money to make investors whole, so this proposal is simply a bailout for them so they don’t have to spend the money to make investors whole.
16 Likes
i agree with all said however locking x wallets temp/perma doesnt hurt anyone (with evidences).
giving the said wallet funds is another beast
At best funds go back to their owners
At worst the chain “burns” xM$ worth of LUNC
its not so much if it hurts anyone by doing it, its more so the precedence it sets on a decentralized chain, then there’s also the “if he can do it then so can we” stigma that comes with it, where does it end, its of my opinion that if you make the mess, then you clean it up, again its just of my opinion.
2 Likes
What the hell kind of proposal is this!!
Gut_Daddy votes NO with VETO!
3 Likes
We have a really ignorant community. Come thieves, we have created an area where you can move freely. If you get detected, we’re trying to say it’s not our problem, we’ll protect you. Binance and other CEXs made these transactions. What are we doing. That’s not our problem, is it? Stupid bastards.
1 Like
Say what you want. Terraport is not a chain problem. This proposal will not pass, even if you shit yourself in this agora. If you don’t like it, fuck off on another chain, but stay away from this one. We are not CEX
2 Likes
you’re right, it’s stupid to develop projects on the lunc chain. If they have a little mind, they realize that they cannot develop business with this chain and society. They do not develop on-chain. At least I wouldn’t do any development on this chain.
1 Like
You would protect the gamblers of a 3rd party L2 dapp, yet wouldn’t protect the chain itself.
Did you also gamble on Terraport? Suspicious. You don’t mind if your wallets are frozen, do you?
Surely, you understand - we must protect 3rd party dapp providers on their say so. Proof is not necessary.
2 Likes
I agree with all of you guys here.
The only moral question that we need to ask ourselves is whether or not we should try to recover that money since TerraPort was built on Terra Luna Classic and their name is indirectly associated to ours, like it or not.
If we don’t do this, then some people will lose hope of getting back their money.
This will cause more damage to our reputation than what has been done already.
These investors who have lost their money will go and tell other people not to invest their money into Terra Luna Classic cause there is no possibility of getting it back if by chance anything goes sideways.
We are a comparatively small chain with just 600 million in market cap and still struggling to find our way in the space.
If there is a possibility that the money can be recovered I think we should try.
1 Like
People can always sue terraport, influencers who promoted it and try to get their money back this way. LUNC blockchain is in no way liable for this mess.
5 Likes
I agree that ideally the funds should be recovered, but it’s absolutely must not be done in the way described in this proposal, although I admittedly have no idea on how to proceed from there, I didn’t take a look at the Terraport situation
It is TerraCVita’s responsability first and foremost, imo if the funds cannot be retrieved, they should take on themselves go reimburse their investors
3 Likes
. NO. I won’t sacrifice one to save the other. Especially since it has nothing to do with the chain. TcV stole the money or allowed it, now let it conjure up. Or on the highway with your church. Let them lick their balls with a trucker
1 Like