Agora is turning into a joker arena. So much April accounts popping up! I am going to create ten new accounts soon. Few validators and little or no input from “Real L1 devs”.
2 Likes
These devs may as well work for free!
My maths must be wrong $ 4750/3 = $1583.33/mth
$3500/3=$1166.67/mth
Someone please tell me I am wrong.
What are the hidden motives? Desperate situations caused for desperate measures I guess.
Why cant we stop the drama on this chain. This same team was rejected a few days ago. They regrouped albeit a different proposer. This is getting ridiculous.
1 Like
If I were the developers I wouldn’t do anything and let the blockchains drift instead of dealing with children here. Let’s see what they’re going to do when nobody wants to work here.
It is a waste of time. Work for free? 
2 Likes
All the AMAs that trashed Bilbo never bothered to even talk to him. Those are your influencers. Btw, Ed Kim is no longer with the L1 team. Neither is Tobias.
They got a Superman who helped developed a flaw code for UST/Luna that crashed it and virtually destroyed the chain. And that is your saviors? Give me a break
6 Likes
Great proposal! Professional tone, clear goals and set at a fair price, this a definite YES. I’ve read through the ‘No’ responses and have yet to see one with any argument or merit. Just the typical finger-pointing, name-calling and ghost-chasing mid-wits that have infected this chain. God speed Terra Allies and frens! I hope the intelligent validators out there see what an asset this could be to our current L1 team, vote Yes and help us get out of the current shit-show of a situation LUNC finds itself in. ‘Many hands make light work.’
3 Likes
I have read up some about it but do not understand why it would be good for LUNC or improve our situation. To me it seems like merging our staking with other chains, diluting the uniqueness of LUNC and letting low-yield staking like LUNA take a portion of our good staking rewards. Can you explain its benefits in more detail as I don’t see them.
Others have already responded to your question about the Alliance Module and why it’s a good thing for the chain, but I think you would benefit from realizing that Terra Classic is just one chain that’s a part of a wider network of Cosmos chains, and that we would benefit from embracing that fact. Isolationism isn’t the answer here.
Yeah, I pointed out issues in proposals and highlighted things I had concerns about, just like you are doing.
Rabbi has nothing to do with this prop. I’d be happy to do a text based AMA on Twitter. We also have an AMA up on Agora that unfortunately has been dogpiled by Anti-Rabbi shills and has been dragged severely off track, but you are still free to ask your questions in there: Co-working and AMA with Bilbo Baggins, Solid Snake, Mangochutney, Chopstick Sensei, and notjoshc
We’re operating off of anonymous Githubs that have no commit history. We created entirely new Githubs just to work on this chain, precisely because of how this community can be. Look at the attacks we’ve been getting just for this prop alone.
This is my job. You are very hostile towards someone you have never talked to before. Why is that?
I’m the team lead. Project management is shared between Solid Snake and I, and we’ll be reporting progress to the community and passing feedback to other team members accordingly. Project management will be Agile with user stories. User stories are a much more flexible way to track progress towards completion of an initiative, in our opinion.
Okay!
HappyCattyCrypto has released two videos so far accusing us of being trolls, bad actors, and that we’re trying to push this in as a Trojan Horse, yet he hasn’t once tried to reach out and have a dialogue with us, despite us having talked with the community extensively and myself having been publicly in the community for months and operating a validator. Instead he’s content to just throw videos dragging us through the mud without doing any due diligence. Something to consider.
Also, he’s factually incorrect in his video. He writes the Alliance Modules integration task off as being a task that requires no programming work, and that’s just plain not true. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the docs: Integrate the Alliance module | Alliance Docs
It’d be nice if these influencers did their research and actually established contact with people who are trying to help the chain before they make videos dragging them through their mud and incite their followers to embark on witch hunts against people who are here to help.
Correct.
I’m not DemonMonkey, I’m actually arunadaybasu 
Yeah, they’ve all talked about me; but not a single one of them has talked to me. Really makes you think, huh?
No. Stop trying to forcefully doxx people without their consent. Doxxing is not a vector of trust.
You need to free yourself of this notion that there can only be L1 team. This mentality is harming the chain and hindering progress. It’s not how open source software works.
Ah yes, I was wondering when the “Bilbo is a bad actor” accusations would start piling in again.
Oh look! Another!
They’ve got their hands full with parity.
Then why bother doxxing ourselves? You have no problem paying other people who are undoxxed already. Take a moment, step back, and realize your inherent bias in all of this. I think it would serve you well.
Jacob was a validator / developer and he was employed by the community to work on L1. Allnodes is validator / developer and they sit on TGF. Duncan ran a validator, and was planning to spin up another validator as well when he was poised to work on the L1 as well. The double standards are many.
Honestly I like Sephiroth and Jagmot, and I think he would still agree that Allnodes has too much VP. This may surprise you, but people can be accepting of the outcome of a proposal without wanting to destroy the validator because they voted a certain way on the proposal. You need to stop trying to attribute intent to our actions.
Yeah. They joined on the same day. Because I asked them to because we put up the prop and did the AMA. Or you know, because they don’t exist. I made them up! It’s all me! I’m actually Do Kwon! We’re all actually from TFL! Darn you @Dannavan_Morrison for figuring it out!
Cool! Don’t trust us! The proposal is structured around that fact. And if we don’t deliver, you can declare your victory over all of Agora for everyone to here and I will be shamed off the chain and my validator will be toast, because you will have been right.
Why are you dividing by three? We’re almost a third of the way through the quarter. This funding isn’t for the quarter. It’s for a specific scope of work to be done and completed. There’s no point trying to map this prop to a quarter. It’s for ad-hoc work.
6 Likes
What’s the timeline?
"Get a live audio AMA " with these devs. This will dispel all “FUD”.
Thank you. 
We are learning! Imo, no L1 developer should run a validator node!
2 Likes
Does it really cost $20,000 to implement Proposal 11322 at the code level? Please, CP is not wealthy, and if this optional feature is so expensive, there is really no need to implement it. CP’s limited funds should be spent on more meaningful things.
1 Like
I see where a lot of people have asked for a spaces (or similar) with the bilbo team. maybe they are on to something. could build community trust by doing it…
Repeated attempts at proposals makes you look scammy when you cannot do the basic thing of verifying you have a team…
Can you get all five devs on a live chat with the community? Hide behind your pretend identities if you must, but at least let us know that you are able to speak…
I really do not see any other way for you to gain traction especially after using rabbi to verbally abuse the entire community for months…
repeatedly battering us with proposals is not building your creditability. There will never be a point when we say “oh yeah lets hire these guys now” unless you can grow up and find your voices for a live chat.
1 Like
1.A Superfluid staking allows lunc investors to accrue additional forms of coins through staking. This is good because people may want to diversify their return across multiple coins.
1.B Furthermore a larger % of the supply is out of circulation.
1.C The amount of utility goes up and incentivizes purchasing of lunc to stake for multiple yields.
1.D Cross chain staking is beneficial for both coins with new incentives and tokenomics
1.E The Oracle rewards pool may drain slower or have more refilling mechanisms through new tokenomic structures as well as people potentially unstaking to move to the oracle module for superfluid staking causing staking rewards for previous holders to go up in percentage.
2.A typically this can be accomplished with sub coins and LP shares like bonding lunc in the form of say stLUNC (Like stAtom with Atom) reducing the supply. If something like this were done in the future if we went along this route we could bond a large portion of the supply say for early depositors but the landscape for this is flexible and this is not necessary.
3.A Lunc benefits from the increased volume of transactions superfluid staking which increases the total burns in lunc tokens which causes deflation. Lunc benefits from utility use cases, holders may see a price increase in the coin due to these factors which again creates many new tokenomics and incentives involved.
Imagine big banks like potter from it’s a wonderful life and superfluid staking is the billing and loan.
4 Likes
Maybe HCC or DJ Trev or anyone of those influencers who never even spoke with or interviewed Bilbo and his team and trashed him would like to be fair and host an AMA?
Or
Maybe that does not fit “their” agenda?
2 Likes
Like what a dojo? Yeah, I know LBA took that off their amended prop. If there are serious issues with any of the work presented, maybe give bilbo a chance to amend his prop instead of being hypocrites.
This whole tribalism mentality isn’t the way forward.
Not only do most investors do invest in other chains and tokens, but the whole.ecosystem is affecting each other.
Basic tokenomics - for the price to appreciate - more money (aka users) are needed. Not only that - if you ever want to sell your bags off at the coveted dollar, you need someone to buy it off from you. A.k.a. - liquidity and demand.
This isn’t about religion. This is pure finance. Best you start learning what you are preaching.
5 Likes
Thanks for the looooooong message.
I didn’t read it. Where’s your work?
Hahhahahha. Chill bro. You don’t even know 1% coding of what I know.
And those GitHub repos uploaded ALL TOGETHER on the SAME DATE is a single commit cause this is my public portfolio.
The same projects exist in my BitBucket also with the entire commit history you can check it if you want.
You really think I am fa(ke like you guys?
2 Likes
Oh i’m all for having multiple teams working on stuff, just not you and your team, there is no trust and none of you are willing to be doxxed fully, and are associated with bad actors of this community, your also asking for us to fund your team to do the alliance module when its a very easy implementation and even states on their post about it how easy it is to set up, i’m sorry but i cannot support a team with proven bad intentions towards the blockchain and its community.
2 Likes
Having read all the comments, and I voted No myself, I think it is generally agreed, certainly in this forum, your not wanted!
1 Like
Are you weak or something? Have you read my props till now? 
What exactly are you trying to do here?
You think you will humiliate me WITHOUT reading me props and my introduction in my props?
Do you understand that after Ed, I am the only one in the community who has real world credentials that can be proven? Cause both of us have registered non-profits in our name. I have 3 companies and 1 NGO in my name. Have you Googled me till now?
You just went and checked my GitHub that I attached here myself? Seriously? That’s the extent of your research?
Btw, I came back to tell you that I wanna thank you cause I would have never thought about shifting 20+ projects from BitBucket to Git had you not given me this idea. I will do it soon, but since I have nothing to prove, I am in no hurry.
I read this now. If you have Git’s, no matter whether those accounts are new or not, you are pushing code there. So share those with us. It could be 1 day old also but should have some code in it.
Also, I am no one to check your repo’s. If you wish to share these with the entire community, you can. If you don’t want to, you don’t need to.
Whoever you are, if you need to claim that you are “Bilbo” you need to get doxxed. Otherwise I am free to call you whoever I want, Elvis.
These are all good ideas and I’d support it.
Personally I don’t want the community to find my address and phone number and get swatted, so no I do not want to be doxxed. I can’t speak for the other devs.
If that’s how you feel that’s fine; I only want to help pump all of our bags rather than watch them circle closer to 0.
2 Likes
It’s hard to give an exact timeline because we don’t control when the L1 TF releases their parity upgrade.
Not really, because people are still insistent on trying to position me as a bad actor. They’ll just shift the goalposts like they have multiple times already throughout all of this. It’s clear as day that I’m being targeted.
And that’s fine! That’s your opinion. If you’re going to have that opinion then you should start considering having Allnodes step down from the TGF multisig if you’re going to take that stance. Wouldn’t want to be inconsistent or have double standards, right?
It’s not just Proposal 11322, it’s multiple implementation tasks including testing. To be frank, the chain needs this to be implemented. Not only has it not been addressed for over two months now, but it’ll help encourage redelegations to better rebalance VP and make it so that validators are able to run their nodes in a more sustainable manner. People are shutting down nodes because the chain simply isn’t worth validating on. This problem needs to be solved. And if we’re not going to follow governance, why even have it?
Rabbi’s actions are his own and are completely unrelated to us.
People in the community have asked and encouraged me to put up this proposal and create an opportunity for our Development Team to work on the chain. They just aren’t you. Your attempt to try and position the community as being absolute in rejecting this proposal falls pretty flat when another segment of the community is what has encouraged us to put a proposal up and have demonstrated their support for this very proposal. Please stop trying to position yourself as if you’re speaking for the entire community. You aren’t.
I’d be happy to do a text based AMA with influencers, where the facts can be written down for all to see.
If you’d bothered to read the message, you’d know I already answered this question.
- You shouldn’t trust any team! You should trust incentives, though.
- Doxxing is not a vector of trust.
- There’s more work then just the Alliance module in this proposal, and no matter how you like to paint it as easy there’s still implementation, testing, and time that needs to be spent making sure it’s done correctly. The goalposts really are shifting around this proposal aren’t they. Did you give the L1 TF this much scrutiny when they double charged the community in Q2 for work that was already merged into the codebase repo in Q1? Are you even aware that that’s happened? I can easily provide the proof for you, or does me telling you the truth make me a bad actor who’s looking to destroy the chain again?
- Please provide proof of this team’s bad intentions towards the blockchain and it’s community. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so let’s see it. I’ll wait.
You don’t speak for the community.
Didn’t take you for an Elvis fan. Learn something new every day. My mom’s a fan too.
4 Likes