You’ll never get LUNC to $1+ by walling it off from the rest of Cosmos. Connectivity and interoperability are force multipliers, they boost all chains involved and make the wider ecosystem greater than the sum of its parts. LUNC has nothing to lose and everything to gain by interconnecting with the rest of Cosmos.
Look at LUNC’s price chart. Does it look like it’s gonna hit $1+ any time soon? I’m not gonna go into the whole religious angle you’re pushing here, you can believe whatever you want, but there’s no reason we shouldn’t be pursuing multiple attempts and initiatives to increase LUNC’s value. Your plan is just a small part of that. Every chain in crypto wants to tap into others’ traffic, user base, and liquidity. If we wall LUNC off from the wider Cosmos ecosystem it’s going to bleed to death. This isn’t even debatable, it’s fact.
Steve (LuncBurnArmy, TGF acolyte) took $125,000 from the community pool recently via proposal 11462. He currently has 2/2 junior devs on his team (of which only 1 is semi-doxxed). The other 0/3 slots are vacant, and have no developers assigned to them, yet the community handed over $125,000 in a single lump sum to Steve/TGF. Where was your scrutiny then? Oh yeah, and Steve himself isn’t doxxed either! So out of a team of 6 (2 juniors + 2 seniors + 1 trainee + Steve), only 1 person is doxxed. 1/6.
Bilbo’s crew asking for $10,000 to begin work is peanuts compared to the $125,000 Steve took.
At least be consistent in your demands, @LukeAims!
THIS COMMUNITY NEEDS TO STOP EMPLOYING ANY UN-DOXED TEAMS. ACCOUNTABILITY MUST COME FIRST!
All teams submitting a proposal should be fully doxed. If they are not willing to then what are they hiding.
Nowhere else in the development community can you get a job without being doxed. Even with remote work the client know who you are. Just employ lawyers and doxx to them; If they uphold the contract then all is well, if not the lawyers can take action against the team. This way the team is doxed but only to a select few lawyers who can use that information to protect all interests.
Lol no, this is crypto, not tradfi. GTFO with your doxxing/regulations bullshit.
And it’s funny you ignored my response above where validators handed Steve $125,000 for a 1/6 doxxed team! Rules for thee, but not for me? Here, I’m gonna repaste the reply again, just for you:
Steve (LuncBurnArmy, TGF acolyte) took $125,000 from the community pool recently via proposal 11462. He currently has 2/2 junior devs on his team (of which only 1 is semi-doxxed). The other 0/3 slots are vacant, and have no developers assigned to them, yet the community handed over $125,000 in a single lump sum to Steve/TGF. Where was your scrutiny then? Oh yeah, and Steve himself isn’t doxxed either! So out of a team of 6 (2 juniors + 2 seniors + 1 trainee + Steve), only 1 person is doxxed. 1/6.
Bilbo’s crew asking for $10,000 to begin work is peanuts compared to the $125,000 Steve took.
At least be consistent in your demands, @LukeAims!
You conveniently ignore all of that, while braying like a donkey for other devs to doxx.
Lawyers, lmao… I’ve got a hunch you’re Tobias’s alt. 'Sup Tubby, how’s it going?
IMHO you should leave crypto and never come back. No one gets into this space to deal with lawyers and push governmental abuse of power over a sector that was started to sidestep stifling regulations and totalitarian financial overreach. Go back to tradfi and Wall Street if you love them so much, and leave the rest of us to pursue Satoshi’s vision of trustless and anonymous finance.
That’s the problem. They should have been doxed and a contract written up before STEVES team received any funding. This community has made a lot of mistakes and they need to stop.
Im always consistent. I wouldn’t have allowed any team to work undoxed. It doesn’t matter for how much. Look back at my comments, as soon as I realised teams weren’t doxed I started scrutinising.
If they are worried about any come backs then just doxx to lawyers that should be employed to write up contracts etc. That way any teams can be held responsible, without the entire community knowing who they are.
What tells you or guarantees this? Besides a spike in the charts, what exactly is welcoming for traders there?
“They”. Its “us”. Terra Classic community. If they stake with us, share their bounty with us and allow us to do the same then we are one. A bigger community. We belong to many tribes. Home in Cosmos. As an Alliance.
Sure we can. Plus, refusing the Alliance module is not walling ourselves off. We still have IBC’s aside from Alliance module don’t we? We are part of Station inter-chain wallet. We don’t need to merge with other chains. I don’t agree with other chains tapping into our rewards system, and complicating LUNC with all these random chains. I invested in LUNC for LUNC, not LUNAATOMCOSMOSRANDOMTHINGY. I don’t invest in those other coins, they can do their own thing, why should I be interested in them? LUNC should stand alone with its own strength and uniqueness. You are advocating for diluting LUNC and its character IMO.
Tonu brought that up here by bringing up preaching, then personally attacking me for not liking the Alliance module, so I’m going to answer. LUNC has been stagnating hard for 6 months, with the scam removal of the 1.2% tax not leading to the promised volumes, utility and burns. You are welcome to your view but I have a more isolationist view of LUNC as its own coin with its own strength and uniqueness, and we don’t need to be merging or allying with other chains, and especially not letting them mooch our staking rewards. The thought of LUNA V2 Do Kwon’s fork abandoning LUNC then staking their LUNA on our chain stealing our higher rewards is offensive. Agree to disagree I guess.
Doesn’t mean we need to merge with them and share our rewards.
It’s obvious, plus the major pump to $0.0006 we had was a big part due to the hype of recovery with the prospect of 1.2% being implemented off-chain, as well as staking being opened and the chain being functional again. The LUNC price has pumped before solely from Binance burns (not lately with tiny burns), the daily/weekly burns we would get would be enormous compared to now, and the real hype for recovery to $1+ would set in with investors piling on. It’s not that hard to play out. Plus I’ve seen it in prophetic dreams so I know how it will go, the prices I’ve seen, and what we should all want, the only way is for us to burn most of the supply.
No I don’t want to be one with them. They are strangers to me. They are other coins that I am not interested in and have no interest in investing in. You might want that, but I don’t, so I’ll vote against it based on my own view for the chain.
Christopher, you need to read up on interoperability. It’s not a merge. You are mistaken.
I’m not, I want the same thing as you do: LUNC at $1+. But every chain in crypto tries to connect with as many others as possible, because it benefits all of them. Usually this isn’t doable for technical reasons (or is difficult), but LUNC is a Cosmos blockchain and thus a de facto part of its wider ecosystem. There’s no harm in widening these connections. We only stand to gain from this! Cosmos will do incredibly well in the 2025 bull run, we’d be losing out on massive gains if we wall LUNC off from the wider ecosystem.
Please read up on these things, your internal knowledge base is severely lacking.
Mate, with that reply I bet you’re in it for yourself.
I tell you what i’m a hobbyist coder, mainly python and JS. I could jump on GitHub fork a few decent projects, change up the code a bit and claim it as my own. Undoxed no one would ever know. I’ll do the work for $16,000 and when it’s buggy you can pay me more to fix it.
It’s a billion dollar blockchain and you expect people to be okay with undoxed teams siphoning even more money away. Crypto is decentralised the dev teams that work on it shouldn’t be, especially in this context.
The fact that when you hear something you don’t agree with you turn to insults, tells me all I need to know about you. It’s decisions like that, and people like you who cause all the money to be wiped out of the space.
You as a validator should have a broader picture of things. You’re statement shows you’re just a investor turned into validator to grab comission fees and pump your bags through your “vision plan”
Linking staking rewards, altering our oracle pool and reward rate, and allowing another coin or coins to take our staking rewards definitely sounds like a type of merge to me, whatever it’s being called. I have a built-in merge detector and this one is giving off alarm bells.
Yes I want LUNC to $1+ but I have my own vision for achieving it, which has no need to rely on other chains, and my own view for LUNC long term which is a deflationary coin with good staking rewards and useful utility. LUNC is a deflationary coin with a unique history with a big supply we need to burn up. There’s plenty of other coins that don’t join with others but stand alone with their own offering. That’s what I support for LUNC, and I personally don’t like the Alliance module so it’s a NO from me on this prop on that basis. I understand the view of wanting to be linked to other coins in cosmos but I don’t want that, especially to the extent the Alliance module would bring.
@wagnerdalcin Wagner, if my Vision Plan is successful LUNC is on the path to $1+ and everyone wins. It’s weird you think that’s a bad thing. I support and invest in LUNC. Not other cosmos coins. They can go do their own thing as far as I’m concerned.
Yes, I am. As are you. As should all of us be. I want a good team to do good work on LUNC, and increase the value of our assets. But if you’re implying I’m getting paid, then no - I’m not affiliated with Bilbo’s team, his prop, or any of the work they’d do. I just think he’s a great programmer and his senior team would get LUNC out of this rut it’s been in for the past 10+ months. Anyone holding this coin should want the same.
That’s the thing - you’re a hobbyist. Bilbo’s crew are professionals, and senior devs.
Also, there’s a mountain of difference between the skillset of a “coder” and a “professional programmer”.
I highly doubt that. And the code would still need to be reviewed by others before going live. Your point is a useless non-sequitor that has no bearing on the fact you’re here trying to doxx a team just days after the CP was drained of $125,000 by Steve’s ghost crew (who not only lack doxxing but actual developers)!
Hard disagree on that, chief. This idiotic notion that every dev has to be doxxed was spun up and perpetuated by TGF and its ghouls for the expressed purpose of routing all control, payments, and further chain development through their “non-profit” org (so they could continue skimming a portion off the top while contributing absolutely nothing of value). It’s a load of shit. Especially on a chain as impoverished and deteriorating as LUNC. Go take a gander at the price chart, then tell me we have the luxury of turning away devs.
Furthermore, doxxing doesn’t protect our community money in any way. Tobias was doxxed, Duncan was doxxed, and they did the AMA/spaces circuit much to the delight of the useful idiots in this thread asking for the same from Bilbo’s crew… yet look where both Duncan and Tobias ended up in the end, despite all their “community outreach”. You operate off a flawed premise, @LukeAims, and to make it even worse you lack the mental acuity to spot holes in the logic of what you’re saying - if you really are a programmer you must be an incredibly shitty one.
I’m just calling you out for your double standards. Instead of wasting time here braying like a mule about a trivial $10,000 to onboard a new team, why don’t you visit Steve’s L1 thread and ask him to return the rest of that $125,000 until his 1/6 team self-doxxes? Given the state of the community pool, I’d say that would get us more bang for our buck, and a larger return on your invested Agora time.
No, I think I’ll keep dissecting your replies here and eviscerating you. It’s easy and fun… and benefits lurkers who are starting to realize the double standards at play here. TGF and their shills (you among them) will do anything to keep other devs from contributing to the chain. If you’d like to convince me otherwise, please visit Steve’s thread and ask his team to doxx, or return the money: Joint L1 Task Force Q2 Proposal with Amendments
If you don’t do that then you’re either a hypocrite, or a shill for TGF.
Pick your poison!
Agreed. It’d be nice to see the usual suspects discuss the prop and its merits, not side-tangents.
It won’t be enough. You can’t wall LUNC off from Cosmos, and expect enough liquidity for it to hit $1+.
The Alliance Module will be a part of the current L1 team’s roadmap at some point in the future months from now, it’s a no-brainer. You’re entitled to your opinion (as wrong as I think it is), but I hope you won’t do a 180 and support the L1 when they announce they’ll be doing this. I’m gonna hold you to this, Christopher. If you’re willing to vote NO to a prop just on the basis of this one item/deliverable, then that logic should extend to other props which include it (regardless if they’re proposed by Bilbo or Steve/TGF). Screencapping this portion of the convo just so I can point back to it in the future if you flip-flop on it:
It might not be called a merge but its about as mergy sounding as a merge I’ve ever heard of. Aren’t you concerned about other chains mooching our rewards? There may be claimed benefits, but that just sounds like empty talk to me. Staking rewards is a huge importance to me for LUNC, and seeing a portion sectioned off for another chain or chains, hoping to get more benefits in return does not seem good to me.
Sure Jebediah, I’ve done it before I’ll do it again. If I vote NO on this prop solely for the Alliance Module, of course I will vote against any L1 Q3 renewal if that is a fixed part of the offering also. I voted NO on the L1 Q2 renewal their first prop primarily because of the Ziggurat proposal and AI side-chain work, being my biggest issue with that prop, so I have a precedence for doing this.
The L1 must go through a seperate governance vote for Alliance module work in-scope, so I can vote NO on it, it can’t be part of the roadmap they offer for me to accept it unless it’s contingent on a seperate governance vote. If they put the roadmap up without Alliance, I COULD vote YES if I feel they should be renewed based on all the circumstances. But if it’s part of the renewal prop as in-scope and it’s not subject to a seperate governance vote, then I’ll vote NO. Sure you can record this. I really don’t like the idea.
How can anyone be sure they are senior devs, without proof?
You just drone on with your idealistic viewpoints, which are wrong by the way. There is a fine balance that should be met between decentralisation and centralisation, and until we have zero-knowledge-proofs developed and in place for situations like this, then doxing will always be necessary for anyone that requires payment for a service. It’s just good practice and it doesn’t matter whether it’s crypto currency tradfi, or you dealing with the next door neighbour.
The only thing you’re eviscerating are the last remaining remnants of any decency you may have once possessed.
I have not, I literally picked apart every single one of your sentences.
You’re in here quibbling about $10k while we just gifted $125k to an undoxxed team.
Have you visited their L1 thread yet, and asked them to doxx or give the money back?
Yes, I am an idealist. And I don’t think we should be moving against the spirit of crypto by forcing people to doxx themselves… especially devs who want to help the chain. Again, Tobias was doxxed - did it do him or us any good? No.
Yet again I repeat: Tobias, Duncan. Your core premise is flawed.
Thing is, there are many viable ways to protect our money from inept or bad-meaning devs. Structuring payouts into multiple installments is one of them (as Bilbo has done in the prop’s OP). Another is greatly reducing the team’s salary until they’ve proven themselves to the community (as Bilbo has done in the prop’s OP). Yet another one is locking the final payout behind a second spending prop, so the community can vote on that as well (as Bilbo has done in the prop’s OP). Or just simply set up a text-based AMA for people to drop by and ask the team questions… as Bilbo has done with their AMA thread here on Agora.
Doxxing is pointless. Steve took $125,000 for an undoxxed team - why aren’t you in the L1 thread right now asking for refunds, or for them to self-doxx? Until you do that I’ll keep calling you a hypocrite, because you are one!
It’s hilarious how people always try to rag on my personal character when they run out of arguments. You’re not the first, and you won’t be the last. All of you come in here with guns blazing, then when I smack you down you pivot towards a pathetic attempt at character assassination.
Yes, Rabbi is mean and calls you out when you say stupid things and act like a hypocrite…
Meanwhile, Steve stole $125,000 from the CP for a vacant and undoxxed team.
L1JTF will hurt the chain if they don’t deliver. But …
you and you’re attitude are sure hurting the chain. I’d say they are hurting the chain for a long, long time.
you attacked Alex due to USTN idea and the multisig discussion
you supported the increase in seigniorage that caused Binance to postpone and cut burns in half (and caused L1TF to prioritize this matter over others in q1)
you are frequently attacking Allnodes with your poroposals (VP cap, validators tombstonig)
you targeted Bruce over his merge ideais on his Twitter channel
you targeted Tobias due to his social media opinions
you are targeting Ed, the most trustworthy member of this community, due to your lack of knowledge of corporations law
you are targeting Steve cause he is getting his piece for working with the team
Do yourself a favor, find something useful for the sake of the chain. Going full attack mode on others isn’t the way to move forward. In fact, it isn’t the democratic way of doing things - corrupt politics do this to climb to power.
You proved my point for me. If there were contracts signed and in place (as there should be) then whoever Steve’s team is would have been in breach and action could be taken to recover the funds.
Talk about hypocrite lol. You know no bounds, you are the one who started throwing around useless insults.
Yes, there are many ways to help protect funds and contracts have done this reasonably well for centuries. I could point out many ways, as I did with the zero knowledge proofs statement, however that’s not what my reply was about. You are so engrossed in you’re “so called” picking apart that you fail to see the bigger picture behind my post. Which is, no one failsafe is enough and doxing alone is useless, however combined with a solid contract and payment schedule the risks can be minimised. At least until zero knowledge proofs are fully developed and deployed to replace them.
Until then, as the old saying goes, it’s better the devil you know. And voting in a good team to write out the contracts and have devs doxx to them is a good way to protect everyone’s interests, without giving that information to the community at large. I’m not even saying bilbos team are bad actors (I don’t know them enough) they could be amazing people and the proposal itself is alright.
However, without these and other failsafes in place it’s too easy for teams to skim money and/or produce an inferior/wrong product.
Here, I’m gonna repaste the reply again, just for you:
