Terra Allies Development Team Spending Proposal & Trial Period

[RabbiJebediah]

@wagnerdalcin

L1JTF will hurt the chain if they don’t deliver.

They already haven’t delivered, given only ~65% of Q1 was completed.
And they also billed us in Q2 for work that Reece of Juno delivered in Q1 for free.

@wagnerdalcin

• 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

Lemme debunk your nonsense real quick:

• Alex’s USTN idea was horrible and would’ve wrecked LUNC, so he had that coming
• I opposed the Binance burns reminting, but it was voted through by validators not Rabbi
• wanting to limit Allnodes stranglehold over LUNC is a good thing, you silly goose!
• Bruce’s merge ideas were not good… we’re cool now, he even unblocked me on Twitter
• Tobias was and is a C-grade coder and a fool… I’m proud having done my part to remove him
• Ed ran away, yet again, but his TGF is a shitty org that’s trying to centralize power over LUNC
• Steve’s an admin charging us $5k/month to write Excel sheets, if anything I’m too lenient with him

@wagnerdalcin

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 always fail to mention the fact I stood by for over 6 months hoping things would sort themselves out - guess what, they haven’t. I supported the TGF when it was first announced (look through Ed’s original thread here on Agora if you don’t believe me). I supported devs getting paid, Tobias getting paid, the L1 team doing work and getting paid… but none of these people have delivered on any of their promises, yet they refuse to let go and admit their faults.

LUNC continues to bleed out. It’s been over 10+ months now, and we’re in a worse situation than pre-staking. All hype is gone, the chain is withering away, holders are leaving, the burn tax is not returning, and all we have is a rapidly dwindling community pool that’s being drained every quarter to fund sub-par work and overpaid administrators, all while TGF continues to centralize its choke hold over LUNC, and Allnodes leeches $30,000/month from our Oracle pool.

I think I’m more than warranted in raising hell. But this proposal isn’t about me or any of that.

Try to stick to the topic at hand, will ya?

[RabbiJebediah]

@LukeAims

You didn’t pick apart anything.

Can’t help you chief if you’re gonna act like the proverbial pigeon on the chessboard.

@LukeAims

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.

So why aren’t you in their thread raising hell over the fact they’ve pocketed $125k?
You’ve posted multiple times in this one, but you have what, 0 posts in the L1 thread?
I dunno man, seems like you have an axe to grind and an agenda to further… ya know?

@LukeAims

Talk about hypocrite lol. You know no bounds, you are the one who started throwing around useless insults.

Talk shit, get hit. You stormed in here; I smacked you down.

@LukeAims

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.

Pointless filler and lame pivot…

@LukeAims

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.

Then we’ll have to agree to disagree. Crypto shouldn’t yield to tradfi schema.
Nobody’s in this space to expose their financials. It’s bad enough we have to KYC to CEXs.

@LukeAims

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.

This point could maybe hold water if we were talking large sums… $50,000+ or such. But the OP plainly states it’s $10,000 upfront, and $10,000 upon work delivered (locked behind a second governance proposal the community will vote on). It’s a paltry sum, even for our depleted LUNC treasury. There’s 5 senior engineers on that team, at some point you gotta take a chance and make a leap of faith - not because we should trust them personally, but because we should trust their incentives that’ll push them to provide good work, so they’ll be asked to return and contribute more in the future. Also, all the devs hold LUNC, so they have an added incentive to pump their own bags. I think that makes them more likely to work hard and put in extra time if need be, since the potential payout is massive if the chain is revived.

@LukeAims

However, without these and other failsafes in place it’s too easy for teams to skim money and/or produce an inferior/wrong product.

Worst-case scenario Bilbo’s team doesn’t deliver and we’re down $10k… but then his name is tarnished and his validator is toast. I honestly don’t think he’d risk all that just to “skim” $2500 or however much he’d be getting from the first payout, it doesn’t make sense. Again, we’re not talking $125,000 in a lump-sum payment like Steve got recently. $10k is peanuts, even for LUNC’s community pool. The team won’t get the other $10k unless the community is happy with their work and votes to release the funds.

@LukeAims

But you keep on deluding yourself lol.

I’m not delusional, I just see double standards everywhere in this community.

Y’all think you can pick and choose devs. You can’t. No one wants to work on this chain because they see it for the clusterfuck it currently is. And our community pool is all but empty - good luck attracting quality L1 and L2 devs without the means to pay them! IMHO the main reason Bilbo is offering to work for cheap is because him and his crew have LUNC bags and they want to revive the chain - that means they’re invested in the longterm health of LUNC. No external developer would deal with all this bullshit otherwise. Especially not senior devs who can make 10x the asking price in the private sector where they clock in their 9-5 and go home afterward with 0 additional responsibility.

We’re not gonna get a better team than Bilbo’s crew… and definitely not for such a low price!

[Tonu_Magi]

@JESUSisLORD

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.

Spell it out for me. T-R-A-D-E-R-S.
The thing is: If a pair(s) have reliable and constant liquidity and volatility - it does not matter the price on large scale.
Trading is in real world equivalent fiat. You trade 8 LUNC or 800 000 LUNC - if the price action is in your favour. So a 1.2% tax means I need to be in 2.2% profit to earn 1% net profit

For an investor or a hodler the price action is passive. Bought once. Gas fee once. Burn tax once.
Bought at 0.0003 and sold at 1$ - Nobody cares about 1% while making 5 figure %.

Like I told you, mate, basic tokenomics apply.
One God to rule them all is as limited as Bilbos fantasy character theme of One Ring to rule them all.

It pains me to see a validator being so biased and after sensationalism that he would disparrage an entire religion and befuddle the most basics just to appear as an influencing member of the fledgling member of the Cosmos ecosystem.

You can do better.

[Mpowski]

@Bilbo It’s a good offer - no doubts about it. But… as you can see in many above comments, it might be more effective to just talk to other validator and try securing votes that way. The expectations of some here are utterly unrealistic. Imho you might have a better chance talking to others on your knowledge and experience level tbh. You tubers taking a literal crap on you “because i dont like him” and despite “they never spoke to you” is a best proof of that.

[LukeAims]

OK…

I must clarify that I never intended to cause any disruption. It appears that there may have been a misunderstanding on your part. Allow me to assure you that I have no hidden motives, as you suggested. As a long-term LUNC holder, I frequent this platform to stay informed about the current state of affairs. To be completely transparent, I must say that I have enjoyed some of your past posts, and I have definitely read and agreed with a few of them. However, my lack of contribution to the discussions does not stem from a disbelief in the importance of holding everyone to the same standards; in fact, I am a firm believer in this principle. Rather, my infrequent posting is simply a personal preference.

On this, we will have to agree to disagree.

Just to be clear, I want to state that I’m not dodging the issue here - I genuinely believe that it’s not the legalities and regulations of contracts that I fully support, but rather the sense of trust they establish between parties. However, until we have a truly reliable solution in place (like zero-knowledge-roofs), contract-based systems remain a necessary evil, especially when dealing with unknown individuals who are seeking funds from an already scarce resource.

As, I said.

“Nobody’s in this space to expose their financials”. I somewhat agree on this, but not when it comes to this type of trust, especially for business.

I totally get where you’re coming from, and I wholeheartedly agree that attracting top-notch developers is absolutely essential for this chain’s success. Frankly, I was surprised to hear that the chain was having difficulty hiring devs. I mean, if they’re offering a competitive salary and have a solid recruiting policy in place, there should be no problem, right? Besides, what’s good at $100,000 is also good at a penny, as my father always used to say “Take care of the pounds and the pennies will take care of themselves. After all, taking care of the small things ultimately leads to taking care of the big things, right?

[wagnerdalcin]

@Mpowski

it might be more effective to just talk to other validator and try securing votes that way.

this sounds suspicious a.f.

[JESUSisLORD]

@Tonu_Magi

Spell it out for me. T-R-A-D-E-R-S.
The thing is: If a pair(s) have reliable and constant liquidity and volatility - it does not matter the price on large scale.
Trading is in real world equivalent fiat. You trade 8 LUNC or 800 000 LUNC - if the price action is in your favour. So a 1.2% tax means I need to be in 2.2% profit to earn 1% net profit

For an investor or a hodler the price action is passive. Bought once. Gas fee once. Burn tax once.
Bought at 0.0003 and sold at 1$ - Nobody cares about 1% while making 5 figure %.

If we are successful in implementing the 1.2% burn tax off-chain, the LUNC price will be making many multiples with huge burns. The traders will trade. 1.2% burn tax will be nothing for them. The goal is to secure off-chain burn tax adoption by exchanges. If we get them to agree as I lay out in my plan, with a simultaneous launch, then any large flight to cheaper exchanges is unlikely. We also tax incentivise the participating exchanges that deposits are exempted from 1.5% tax. This plan will definitely benefit traders, but mostly investors. Making trading whales who don’t hold LUNC great again is not the point of this plan. This plan is geared to investors. Traders go wherever price action is, and there will be PLENTY if we can succeed in getting the 1.2% off-chain.

@Tonu_Magi

It pains me to see a validator being so biased and after sensationalism that he would disparrage an entire religion and befuddle the most basics just to appear as an influencing member of the fledgling member of the Cosmos ecosystem.

You can do better.

You are attacking and mocking my genuine faith as a Christian then have the nerve to gaslight me that I am disparaging my own religion? Do you realise how evil you are? What I said about you is true. Just relax and stop attacking my faith, it’s completely unnecessary and uncalled for. My faith in Jesus Christ is pure and my intentions to LUNC are for its good as God leads me, as I want all investors to benefit as we achieve off-chain burns and rise to $1+. You can stick to the topic without letting your spiritually dark primal urges take you over. I disagreed with the Alliance module integration and you couldn’t contain yourself from personal attacks. You are the one who needs to do better. Behave in a more respectful manner. I am doing well, as the Lord leads me, thank God!

[Mpowski]

Whats suspicious? I hope there are some people left in here (validators) who are actually reasonable. Arguing here seems more and more like talking into a wall. There are people who think Agora is a McD stakeholders board. We have people who:

• think LUNC is in any position to demand doxxing from devs who want to work on it (there are practically no devs who want to work on it)
• want devs to work for free, “to prove themselves” before getting paid. Spoiler alert: they won’t.
• argue for milestone payment system - this is in no way supported by LUNCs outdated governance/spend system. This is not upwork. There is also no one who will code and implement such changes.
• believe we are in any position at the moment to do anything but bare minimum updates.

But despite we have near-disfunctional L1 dev team at the moment and cant agree on fixing it, we have delusional wishful thinking bucket lists like the below which have 0 chance of implementation:

Community Gauged Roadmap Ideas For Post Parity

I strongly believe that the LUNC community will thrive when we learn to handle disagreements constructively. As a global community united by our blockchain, we share the common goal of achieving the best for it. It’s crucial to maintain a friendly atmosphere in Agora, which will foster an environment where everyone feels comfortable sharing their ideas. Even if we don’t agree with a particular idea, we should aim to engage in respectful conversations with one another. However, we must also reco…

[Kryptobia]

@JESUSisLORD

If we are successful in implementing the 1.2% burn tax off-chain, the LUNC price will be making many multiples with huge burns. The traders will trade. 1.2% burn tax will be nothing for them

Can you provide some examples, what other tax coins have thriving volume and trading? All tax tokens i have seen have one massive hype run then they fade away.

[JESUSisLORD]

@Kryptobia

Can you provide some examples, what other tax coins have thriving volume and trading? All tax tokens i have seen have one massive hype run then they fade away

The core of the plan is achieving 1.2% burn tax off-chain. As far as I am aware no other token has achieved this on major exchanges. If we only have the on-chain tax and cannot achieve off-chain within 6 months my plan is a fail. But if we achieve the 1.2% burn tax off-chain on major exchanges we have a sure way to burn the supply, capturing a portion of the high traded volume on exchanges for burns, and we will have a sure path to $1+. The hype won’t cool down IMO as LUNC once was at $100+ and once we have off-chain the hype of recovery narrative will be enormous, resulting in many new investors, volume and price action. You can discuss this in my actual agora thread so I don’t keep going off topic here Vision Plan to achieve $1+ LUNC - #104 by JESUSisLORD.

[nikolson41075]

@JESUSisLORD

The core of the plan is achieving 1.2% burn tax off-chain.

In addition to exchanges, it is necessary to agree with large Lunc holders on the organized placement of assets on exchanges. This will be more difficult than negotiating with CEX. There must be a plan, at what price what volume of supply to deliver. In short, your plan needs to be supplemented. Without this item, collapse and chaos are possible

[JESUSisLORD]

@nikolson41075

it is necessary to agree with large Lunc holders on the organized placement of assets on exchanges. This will be more difficult than negotiating with CEX. There must be a plan, at what price what volume of supply to deliver.

Currently a large portion of LUNC is held on exchanges. These holdings will not be affected by the changes directly until they want to sell, where they will incur a modest 1.2% burn tax on the sell transaction. The price, volume and burns will ultimately be decided by market forces, supply and demand, interest and hype and sentiment. Once we get the go ahead from major exchanges, their relevant wallets whitelisted, and the launch of the 1.2% burn tax off-chain, we are set. The plan is a success at that point, with the final step to continue to push for near unanimous adoption of the 1.2% on exchanges by traded volume. Holders on-chain and holders on exchanges can keep holding or sell when they want. Traders will trade the huge price movements. LUNC investors and the long term benefit of LUNC will be great as we rapidly burn the supply and raise the price. My goal is to achieve this.

[nikolson41075]

Do you think most of Lunch is on the exchanges? Are you sure about this? I have other information.
I used to think so too. And based on my delusion, I was also a supporter of the sales tax.

[LetsGrowDev]

your funny, and really bad at acting.

"worse case bilbos team don’t deliver and you are down $10k, you would do well in business. not the scamming business you mastered that.

i think i may put up a prop where anyone who receives./ received lunc funds must doxx themself.

LUNC IS IN A $30 BILLION + hole lol

and anyone who thinks its k to IBC whluna mistaking.

Rabbi I’m sure you have a cosmos YouTube, time to pick you all off.

[Tonu_Magi]

@LetsGrowDev

think i may put up a prop where anyone who receives./ received lunc funds must doxx themself.

Good luck on getting the prop pass governance.

[Tonu_Magi]

[LetsGrowDev]

prefer graphene.

I’m stronger than aluminium and not as soft.:

p.s keep your dog on a leash, please…before he make a bigger mess

[Tonu_Magi]

He is all yours to keep.

[LetsGrowDev]

plenty sie-mens that can have them, if not the medical sector.

so tony, what do you think about binance paying for the prop of doxing all who received from props on station wallet.

isn’t rebel wallet for lunc or supposed to be, unsure why lunc do governance.on station wallet.

[JESUSisLORD]

@nikolson41075

Do you think most of Lunch is on the exchanges? Are you sure about this? I have other information.
I used to think so too.

@nikolson41075 you can see here that 2.2 Trillion LUNC is sitting on Binance hot wallet and many billions on other exchange wallets https://luncdash.com/toplist/holders.html.