Terra Classic: The Nuclear Voting Option


A novel emergency DeFi governance protocol is proposed to the community for review and distribution.

Disclosures: We own both LUNAv1 and USTv1.

Who we are: We are the 1 Terra Community, that includes you. We believe the existing Terra community is more than the sum of its parts. Help us lead with purpose to save our 1 Terra Community.

image Telegram Chats
Twitter Feed Twitter Announcements
Twitter Feed Impacts and Activisms


A DeFi community cannot function under centralized voter suppression. We present a simple emergency protocol that could be applied by a dominant DeFi community to legitimately retake governance under any proof-of-stake system.


The code requires only to tally up the wallets in each ballot wallet at end of the voting period.

Note: The actual weighting of the UST debt’s right to vote could be calculated at the end of the voting period.


Let’s say Prop 123: Vote to split Terra v1 to a new community fork under the confidence of the dominant DeFi community’s care

  • Vote YES wallet: terra102938210938210938201983
  • Vote NO wallet: terra1019283091283ohi324098dfa
  • Vote ABSTAIN wallet: terra1klahsdf897ho324kb238

A minimum quorum of 40% of the network must vote for this measure to be accepted.

Register your vote by sending the minimum physical amount of coins (either LUNA or UST) into 1 of 3 ballot wallets. Sending more coins than necessary actually hurts your voting power. At the end of the voting period, anyone can sum up all the senders’ registered wallets for the total value of their coins to count towards the ballot’s weight. The ballot that succeeds a supermajority 2/3 (66.7%) of the votes wins. Since the majority accept this decision it means the majority are willing to accept a specific new fork.

This measure is not meant for typical day-to-day governance but as an emergency protocol to legitimately take back control from the few.




This is what is needed to take back control.

The current governance setup is amusing to say the least.

Get this, in order to be allowed to vote (stake) you have to first vote to allow staking, which you (surprise) cannot do


We would like to remind everyone that the above proposal requires no changes to code. It just requires for big decisions that we create ballot wallets. That is it. Nice and simple.


This is confusing I will be honest.

Basically is this plan based on the validators or general LUNC token holders?

There are a lot of what ifs.

It feels like this is a way to poll to get to a general consensus of a plan, not a binding governance vote.

How will the vote results be implemented?

There is too much room for legal challenges to the vote imo.

For something like this to work you will need 2/3’s of the validators on board to vote for this in the first place. Which they will never do.

I get the theory behind what you are trying to do, which is to give someone with well 1 token the same voting power as someone with 1 Million.

It’s commendable even. My first governance proposal was to take the vote and give it to the general holders of LUNC. Even that is not the best solution (nor will it ever pass the voting process here), so I came up with not only a more fair approach for both community and validators, but one that has a more stable approach.

Why not work with me on my plan and lets make a solid solution. We both have some good ideas


Appreciate your efforts, we need this ASAP…

The ballot wallet strategy was specifically designed assuming that all existing governance and validators are hostile actors towards the greater DeFi community who are true owners of the network. It requires exactly 0 participation of the existing governance and validators. It requires no physical organization or executive management. The results of the ballet wallets are openly verifiable by the public and there is zero code required to implement it. Once verified, the will of the community is recorded within the on-chain ledgers that everyone already trusts and the community can act on the proposal with or without the existing governance and validators to participate, who should listen otherwise the threat of splitting into a new network that the dominant community recognizes and supports will leave the existing network empty of users. No new DAO chain is required. In other words, this is a poison pill that the greater DeFi community has against the few hostile controlling actors. There are zero legal issues and the results are binding at the community level. The voting has always been a community matter and it was never meant to be disabled by a k-ill switch.


It should only take into account the voter’s balance before the crash, since people who bought later have an unfair advantage, and they also might not want good for Terra.

Don’t get me wrong I get your view, and I don’t think there is one right just what’s I think and decide. Terra chain did continue allowing LUNA to dilute and be sold and I don’t see how to do returns on LUNA purchased after any snapshot because if not returned then that’s.outright stealing people’s money saying they bought nothing, ouch… blocking off everyone cause some to a lot may simply be speculators, well, I think allow it and take it into account in plans going forward (economically, governance, etc). Many may not be speculatirs, only data I know for sure is one who bought before, on way down, and after (hello there).
I figure incentive for good of community, blockchain, and or ecosystem should be same as always, decentralized trading with market incentives and bring value to LUNA for all who wanna see LUNA gain value for their own reasons.

With the price on LUNA’s bybit, if you do airdrop2 with % of Luna for those who buy ustc, it would stabilize Lunc’s marketing and ustc!! Could you open this vote I bet it would be approved?

with the price of luna on bybit if you do airdrop2 for those who buy ustc!! it would stabilize the network very easily!! I would really like lunc at a considerable price because I entered at 10$ but I only have 23000 lunc that won’t solve my losses if ustc and lunc don’t stabilize


1 Like

Interpol com carta com mais de 15mil detentores

We need to move on this.

I don’t think Do-kwon/tfl have any plans of including the newly minted 6.5 trillion LunaC in governance.

Happy to be corrected by any mods here who know about the future plans for opening up governance.

1 Like

It simply can’t be corrected, we can’t get control of the lunc chain, and we can’t even complete a simple pledge vote.

If thats the case then we might as well pack up this whole crypto/blockchain/defi experiment and go back to good old fashioned brick and mortar banks. The whole point of the blockchain and defi is decentralized community control. 370 million tokens controlling a 6.5 trillion token supply IS NOT DECENTRALIZATION.


This is what is happening now, $6.5 trillion is being governed by $370 million, there is nothing we can do, the votes are controlled by them, we can’t get a response from them to the proposals we make, we can’t do anything.
It’s a cycle, they control the vote and we can’t pledge the vote to gain control without passing a proposal to lift the ban on pledging.
Is there true decentralisation? At least on this project it’s not.


v2 is already down

I like this as an “if all else fails/stop gap” approach ref: Voting

Maybe the LUNC/UST collected on each Vote wallet is burned post-count with a memo of the decision Y/N/A and the proposal number/title allowing re-use of the wallet (FIFO style)

(Hopefully will give us enough time to get back to the usual MIMO style Voting system)

switch (governanceState)
case stateWorking:
    hasPassed = DetermineFromGovernance();
case stateBroken:
    hasPassed = DetermineFromBallotWallets();

The MEMO field works too. We chose not to use it to help minimize user error.

i believe in you.