BIG NO WITH VETO from me!
3 Likes
The L1TF chose to take sides regarding the Allnodes problem on social media and that is why we are having this debate. To say they are âjust buildersâ ignores their ability to shape public opinion as community leaders.
It would be one thing if the L1TF issued a neutral statement along the lines of âit is up to the community to decide whether they think Allnodes poses a risk.â Instead they chose to take sides and trigger this debate.
Those of us who see the danger posed by Allnodes being a central point of failure and are concerned about Terra Classic being isolated from the rest of the cosmos ecosystem are forced to question the L1TFâs judgement because of they chose to take a partisan position on this issue.
@Mpowski
So youâre saying that (and as is about to be also proven via this post) that it turns out that it is members of the PR team of the L1 Task Force (which is even worse then it being the Oversight Committee) who are responsible for the proposal to cease payments to Jacob Gadikian which can be proven by blockchain transactions.
As we know, thereâs already screenshots of private conversations that Gadikian provided showing him being threatened via a removal proposal by Zaradar, and now there is enough proof that exists on the blockchain to show that personal reasons were being put before the LUNC Communityâs best interests in trying to oust Jacob from the community.
But for fun, letâs follow the breadcrumb trail with me.
- Proposal 11316 is the proposal intended to cease payments to Jacob Gadikian. You can see that proposal here: Station
- Proposal 11111 is the proposal that repealed Proposal 10983. You can see that proposal here: Station
- Chain analysis has revealed that the proposer of Proposal 11316 and Proposal 11111 came from the same wallet address of terra155pp4gsf9prg7vu3vv3faq5rfd96439nmawwut. You can see that wallet in more detail here: Terra Finder
- Here is the walletâs SubmitProposal Transaction for Proposal 11111: Terra Finder
- Here is the walletâs SubmitProposal Transaction for Proposal 11316: Terra Finder
- As you said Powski, Proposal 11316 was proposed by the same wallet that proposed Proposal 11111.
- Proposal 11111 was publicly signed by Matts Market, who is a member of the LUNC LIVE validator (a validator that is publicly known to be compromised due to being hosted by Allnodes). You can see Mr.DiamondHandz asking Allnodes to send their validator seed phrase to Matts Market in this tweet here: https://twitter.com/MrDiamondhandz1/status/1599567141505597440
- Seems very coincidental that Matts Market would publicly sign their name on Proposal 11111, yet not put their name on Proposal 11316, instead saying that itâs proposed by âThe coalition of the LUNC Community and validatorsâ. A typo, Iâm sure.
- Oh look! Another coincidence! Matts Market has also posted in this very Signalling Proposal thread saying âNo with vetoâ! Signalling Proposal - Create an Alternative L1 Team ran by Notional Labs - #31 by MattsMarket
- What a bunch of coincidences that is! Well, at least he isnât a part of the L1 JTF Oversight Committee or is trying to join it! Oh⌠Wait⌠https://twitter.com/MarktMatts/status/1616123132938702848
- Well itâs just Matts Market only, right? Oh wait DemonMonkey is part of LUNC LIVE too! What a coincidence! Hey isnât he handling PR for the L1 JTF and also a Compliance Officer for TGFâŚ? https://twitter.com/ZaradarBH/status/1611376277344190465
- Surely a compromised validator that has publicly admitted to being compromised by Allnodes and has many members of their organization deeply intertwined within the L1 JTF and TGF would have no incentive to put forth a proposal as a âcoalition of the LUNC community and validatorsâ that seeks to oust the very person that exposed them from their team, would they? What incentives could they possibly have to be doing that?
The blockchain doesnât lie. Only people do.
2 Likes
A group of people reached out to me in regards to errors when attempting to put up a text prop. They kept getting errors on Terra station and after the fourth attempt I went ahead and put it up for them. Iâm openly stated this live in a Twitter space the night it happened so of course my name was not on this because we did not write it and hence why it was posted by my wallet address. I didnât feel the need to change my wallets address because I explained it publicly while doing it if I wanted to be incognito I could have easily posted it from a new wallet hence I believe in transparency that is why it was posted by my wallet. Please continue insinuating whatever you like there is no conspiracy. Please get your facts straight before you speak on the behalf of others.
2 Likes
No with veto
1 Like
Who is the author then please Matt. Blockchain transactions point to you and twitter space is a hard to verify source. I looked for 11316 author on twitter search and got nothing.
Not speaking on your behalf bro, just posting facts that can be pointed to and verified by anyone and they can reach their own conclusions, unlike the story youâre giving me that no matter what you do can never truly be proven and will always live in a grey area in terms of verifiability. This is a trustless space buddy. I donât trust what youâre saying by default, because the incentive for you to lie is too great since your validator is compromised and youâre trying to join the L1 JTF.
But hey, since you believe in transparency so much, answer me this directly then since so far all Iâve gotten is banned from the LUNC LIVE Telegram by Mr.DiamondHandz and my messages deleted for asking this question. Is LUNC LIVE remaking their compromised validator and validator wallets in order to better secure the Terra Classic chain? When are you planning to do so? So far this all Iâve had from your organization in terms of communication on the matter.
1 Like
Come now !J.G. and his team left Lunc community !So let it be as !Good bye and let turn page to the future !NO MORE Notional and JG.
3 Likes
Cant you see what Jacob et al are trying to do?
1.They want to take down allnodes for selfish reasons. He is now tweeting about allnodes validator(s) on polkadot. His behavior is unacceptable.
2. Notational Lab wants to develop an L1 team- that will destroy LUNC at this time
3. There are some background noise thatâs now popping up. The noise seems to be coming from a defunct body.
We dont need two L1 teams at this time We dont even have the resources to do it.
âI donât think LUNCDAO is credible to be honestâŚâ Do you remember this statement you made some time ago. Yet Jacob and him are holding hands.
3 Likes
It is seriously time for Terra Rebels, Notional Labs and all these loosers to f off and let the gown ups play. Have you idiots not done enoiugh damage to this chain? You pulled out from the L1 team - then be gone! proven to not be a team player, proven to be disruptive rather than contributing - just got away. Invest your idiotic behaviour elsewhere
4 Likes
No more notional and JG - go away, you left now keep your peace. Go join Shiba Inu or something. No more Terra Robbers, you have taken enough without results. Yes to our current L1 team, let them do their job. Stop this malicous interference. Letâs be honest, if you were wanting the best for LUNC this is not what you would be doing. You choose the destructive path. let it be your own. leave us out of it. Godspeed.
5 Likes
Great how you guys like to hide my comments. Cannot handle the truth?
Let me mention it again thenâŚ
Jacob whoever from whatever labs chose to leave the L1 team - after rather than contributing to working as a team he spent his time on social media bad mouthing the people he was supposed to work with. Incompatible for team work. Aggressive and offensive (like me).
Not somebody we need in a leadership position if we want LUNC to succeed.
5 Likes
Thatâs actually a first normal comment of yours. Thanks.
Itâs a complete waste of resources to have another team.
I know there are some folks who sympathise but we just canât dismiss the so-called caution on Allnodes, was done more for jealousy and profit driven.
3 Likes
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
This topic was automatically opened after 16 hours.
Allnodes poses a threat to the entire cosmos ecosystem because they mislead consumers by marketing themselves as a non-custodial service. How do you justify Allnodes falsely advertising a critical security component of their business?
Further, would you please explain why a competing L1 team would âdestroy LUNC?â Multiple contractors competing for a project is a standard business practice.
Lastly, my opinions arise from my own observations. If they occasionally align with people I generally disagree with then so be it. Broken clocks etcâŚ
The answer lies in your statement. The points below were extracted from an article.
"
Competing layer 1 development teams on the same blockchain can have several drawbacks, including:
- Network fragmentation: When multiple layer 1 teams compete on the same blockchain, it can lead to a fragmentation of the network and a split of its user base, reducing the overall network effect and potentially undermining the security and stability of the blockchain.
- Confusion for users and developers: Having multiple competing layer 1 teams can lead to confusion for users and developers, who may not understand the differences between the teams and which one to use.
- Competition for resources: Different layer 1 teams may compete for the same resources, such as developer talent and community support, which can lead to a waste of resources and a slower rate of innovation.
- Inconsistent user experience: Different layer 1 teams may implement different features and user experiences, leading to an inconsistent user experience across the network.
- Lack of interoperability: With multiple layer 1 teams competing on the same blockchain, it can become difficult to ensure interoperability between different systems, leading to a fragmented ecosystem.
- Duplication of effort: Different layer 1 teams may end up working on similar projects and solutions, leading to duplication of effort and resources.
Overall, the presence of multiple layer 1 development teams competing on the same blockchain can lead to inefficiencies and reduce the overall value of the network. Itâs important for the community to come together and align on a common set of standards and protocols to ensure the health and growth of the network"
1 Like
In other words a competing team could lead to inefficiencies. My question is why you believe a competing team will lead to destroying the chain.
Also, please link the article so we can read the quoted portion in context.