So my take on this is that Terra Rebels have possibly made a move here that will severely damage their reputation, and possibly LUNC as a whole. There’s multiple sources that LUNC will be compatible with the new interchain station wallet including confirmation from DK it will be supported. TR look to be spreading FUD and asking for 150k for L1 work, but there’s actually no real details of why or what the costs are for, they have said they have had no time to budget and so how have they even reached that figure?
I’m fully behind Devs being paid but NOT writing Devs a blank cheque without a full business plan and proposal. The community had the opportunity to have over $4 million from a multi sig wallet put into the community pool for all this kind of work but these people couldn’t trust each other with the money to do that, they all wanted blank cheques again rather than put it in the pool.
I’ll await a full proposal of how the funding is to be spent if they want to continue on this dangerous path, TR need to start acting more professional and accountable as there’s plenty of other Devs waiting in the wings who are capable of putting proper business plans and quotes together for work
Whether it’s Rebel Station, Cinderella Station, Polly Wanna Cracker Station IDC… I just want it to work. So can anyone explain why Governance and Staking are not showing up in Chrome extension for Rebel Station?
We can only go by what we have been informed by the TFL development team that is working on building Interchain Station. DK is not a member of that team.
The Chrome extension has never supported governance. You must connect to the web portal for that. It is the same with the Terra Station chrome extension.
The work on the Rebel Station web backend is required to support the desktop and mobile apps. We will initiate projects to refactor those applications immediately once the backend is ready and the web portal and extension are fully separated.
Awesome, thanks for the reply. I’ve only ever used mobile, web, and mac desktop. Good to know about Chrome extension. Also, good to know about backend necessities. TY and GL.
To whomever knows the right answer,
Question: in the context of what Interchain Station will “support,” what LunC transactions will stop working on Interchain Station?
In everything I’ve read it seems that there is a lack of understanding on what functionality Interchain Station will provide.
Will it still allow us to see/interact with our originally-named-non-prefix-changed-wallets? Receive from CEXs? Send to other LunC originally named wallets?
Without the wallet prefix change, is it only IBC functions that won’t transpire? Or will Interchain Station be utterly useless for LunC without the wallet prefix change?
I just wanted to make this clarification so it’s clear to everyone, in the event that Terra Rebels decides to step away from maintaining Rebel Station and related apps / infrastructure, Terra Rebels agrees to provide a smooth transition path of the underlining infrastructure and apps for a fee to be determined at that point in question.
It was the administration that was responsible for the collapse of Luna, now if there is a plan to move Luna to another chain, then a penalty is given to us, is the penalty for investing and trusting to be unclaimed?
WOW! I dont know the editor/language/database that is being used but my limited knowledge would suggest that the change would require a find and replace procedure to change all “Terra.xcsdd…” addresses to “Terrac.xcsdd…” . Am I simplifying things? That shouldn’t take long with 40+ TR.
Hi @echel0n I understand that this is necessary as I imagine do most. However this deviation from the roadmap is fairly significant for many reasons as I’m sure you’re aware. In the grand scheme of things this prop will pass I imagine.
Is it not possible to work on the cosmos upgrade simultaneously? If this is a question of funding then that is something that can also be considered following resolution of 10983 or the funding Wallet.
Care to provide a link or two? Bold claims require bold proof.
I agree this proposal is sloppy in its current form and should be revised, but come on, TR has always tried to do good for LUNC and the community. Let’s not be unfair to them. The chain probably wouldn’t be alive if they hadn’t put in 6+ months of unpaid work.
Though I definitely agree with you on the quotes issue. Whoever wrote this prop should’ve provided a rough budgeting plan to go alongside with it. Submitting a proposal in this unfinished state while asking for $150,000 is just poor form - better to have waited another day or two until they had something more concrete before posting it.
And this part as well had me cringing: We strongly recommend that the community votes for the plan.
Extremely poor form. The proposal should speak for itself - if you can’t communicate urgency through the prop’s points, then it’s best to hand the work to someone more capable who can. Again, whoever wrote the OP needs a lesson in how to draft business proposals.
If I’d have put a proposal out to a customer like this, they wouldn’t laugh and likely use bad language before kicking me out.
What are we paying $150,000 for exactly, where is the breakdown of how that money is to be used? Any developer roughly knows what is involved, and it is not a lot of work, the code is simply waiting for you to simply fork and use it.
It’s time to stop these money grabbing proposals and start sending out serious proposals with breakdown of the work involved, costs assigned, and milestones clearly defined.
This should be VETO’d as these proposals need to end, it really does seem to me like the Terra Rebels are simply trying to get as much money as they can for doing the smallest amount of work possible.
I haven’t seen the Terra Rebels get paid before and would like all lunatics to take this in consideration before going on a rampage asking for receipts on everything
You say that they have put in six months of unpaid work, again, we have no information on what has been done, who has done it, roughly how much time they have spent, etc.
From what I have seen, most (not all) of what has been done are very minor code changes, parameter changes, and re-enabling of previously disabled functionality.
I appreciate the work that has been done, I really do, and I am sure some individuals have genuinely put in a lot of time. I think those individuals should be compensated for what they have done. Proposal 10946 is in place and agreed upon to make sure those individuals are compensated correctly, I think it is great that they are doing it, and doing it properly, now we need the same moving forward.
