The Review of Work by Tobias Andersen / Zaradar - Lead L1 Dev

This is not a proposal which will be voted on. In this thread every LUNC staker is requested to share their view of the work and conduct of Tobias Andersen (Zaradar) - a Lead Developer of the L1 Team.

The need for such a review exiats for the following reasons:

  • Zaradars conduct on Twitter has been questionable according to many people
  • His level of work completion has also been questioned by some
  • Q2 Spending Proposal is currently up for voting so any malicious behaviour, if any exists, should be identified as soon as possible and the spending plan either ammended or scrapped.
  • The pay of Tobias Andersen is set to rise to over 13k USD without motivation for such move
  • The Lead developer has not recently participated in any Agora governance discussion as of late

I urge anyone to share their views, encounters with the lead developers and recorded proofs of completed work - or (the opposite) of non-professional behaviour and/or lack of acheivements.

I would welcome the Lead Developer to participate and answer any questions, clear any doubts people have about his persona.

The point of this is to draw a common conclussion whether this person has lived uo to the expectstions or not and to move forward accordingly.


I am guessing you also weren’t in the Spaces just now.

Listen to it. There is nothing more to say or discuss about any of these people.

They should be completely removed with immediate effect.

I can’t believe the sh(i)t the community is being subjected to, for no fault of ours.


No, I’ve not been using Twitter for a while now. I’ve only seen Tobias threatening people with court, refusing to answer questions, taking credit for all the L1 work and picking fights with other people. If you heard something new do post a short script of it so people can be aware of it.

I don’t care about Tobias attitude (and tbh he is in the right to react after being attacked over and over). All I care is about devs working on the chain to improve it.

L1jTF we’re hired to deliver the job and delivered it (some might not agree). As long as they keep improving the chain and no other team come forward with an alternate plan. I’ll support them.


I will start this by saying that in the TR era before the whole 150k$ and the leaked 3hour long town meeting hall I was a supporter of Zaradar. Though the problems weren’t as easily seen there were still tensions felt in the discord. Still being a relative casual observer I thought that there were other factors that were making things difficult for Tobias to work.
Oh boy was I wrong.
He wasn’t my idol or anything but the saying is “Never meet your heroes” still applies in a way here.
Becoming more active on discord and following Tobias on twitter has really opened my eyes.

As an investor who bought into lunc and generally crypto it is easily understood by all that we do not want to doxx ourselves and noone has a right to know the amount of tokens someone owns unless they are willing to tell it themselves.
Honestly this kind of talk from a lead dev working on this chain is concerning
Tobias 1

Even in his recent HCC video he has mentioned doxxing the community to become “more mature investors”
5:24 “we need to become a bit more mature I’m trying to encourage people to start doxing themselves because I think at the end of the day if we want to attract the type of investors that will really take us to the literal Moon we need to mature we need to stop hiding” - Tobias

Further we all bought into this because we saw something special with lunc and merging back to luna is not something i would ever consider to be a good thing yet here Tobias is talking about it.


There are more examples of him mentioning merging lunc with luna but i think with this you get the point
Tobias Anderse (pro-merge with Luna2, 1)

Now comes a part I really detest to see. We can all have disagreements and things can get heated but this should be unforgivable. Things like this should not be said after all the community has been through and suffered to now even jokingly threaten to steal keys from someone in the community more so from someone getting paid by that community and working on the code!


I start to question if my wallet is safe since i am a co-author of an alternative spending proposal. Are any of our wallets safe especially when someone opposes Tobias? As an outsider I can imagine how ludicrous this looks that the lead developer is threatening to steal private keys from the people that are paying him to do a job. If i never bought lunc but was considering it and saw something like this I wouldn’t invest in this coin

I would like to go a bit with the way things have been talked about from both sides, the L1 and the community. Now we have all seen that Steve has been on a few ama’s the last few days and presented himself as a representative between the L1 and the community so I ask this. If the L1JTF has known this for the past 6 weeks why are we just now finding out about this now? Or better yet if Superman has been MIA for the past 6 weeks how can L1 put forth a proposal where he is included in the work and has pay included in the proposal? Would have the L1 let this community know at all? Looking at this now only confirms all the problems I and many have seen with the proposal. If Superman wants to do something else I have nothing against that but the proposal is at best misleading in that case and should be amended!

Now as someone that has been in the discord and saw what happened that night with the latest upgrade and all the validators that tried to correct the issues I honestly wonder how Tobias can say this. To equate a 10 chain halt for a rather simplistic upgrade as flawless …I just wonder what else is in store for us with this kind of thinking.


Things are never as ideal as one would want but even when someone is trying to calm things down these kinds of comments come forth from Tobias. As for being a full time developer on this chain why is Tobias actively seeking out employment? Before i get attacked I’m not saying that he is not allowed to, he is, he is his own person and has a right to do what he wants.
But wouldn’t the right thing to do since he mentions that he sees lunc as a family to at the very least inform us that he isn’t planning to stay long term? Why must we find things out like this, that are just sprung out suddenly to the community? Why isn’t the representative who has been doing multiple ama lately ever mentioned this?

I have really tried to be fare here but I am seeing a multitude of problems. Even though there are claims from the L1JTF and its most active members that the needed amount of communication was had I say it wasnt good communication or good information coming from the L1 team! Not only are the lead developer and their representative issuing conflicting statements but we have also been outright ignored concerning questions on agora pertaining to the legal representation proposal and the questions on the Q2 spending proposal too .

For the months I have been a part of this community I have really tried, I have even spent my time defending Tobias but as the months go on all I am seeing now are emerging problems. In the middle of all of this it comes down to 1 common factor. Tobias as he himself has said was the founder of Terrra rebels and under him it had become bloated with non developers gearing toward a more traditional style of organization before it imploded. That is what I am seeing now happening with L1JTF.


I couldn’t have said this better, you post has pretty much covered all my concerns I’ve had.
I thought to myself I couldn’t be the only one that sees this and get alarmed.

this tweet which is definitely a threat, really set my alarms off even more than it already has.
threats to stealing private keys is a serious problem, and if Tobias claims he can easily do it, what more does he know about possible exploits that we don’t?

all in all, I feel this has become a big problem and as you said from an investors point of view, this is also deterring.

thank you for this and showing the community what is really going on.


@wagnerdalcin Sure dude, keep supporting the grifting. As the main grifter says, the grifting execution has been flawless. And then when the chain stops working and your bag is worth 0 dollars, you will regret your words, you retarded fvck. You have the damn evidence in front of you and you refuse to see it, you must be either stupid or a bot, I have no other explanation for your behavior.


Keep slandering and throwing hate … that’s the attitude that’s killing the chain…

1 Like

This is part a response to your comment on the upgrade to v1.1.0 (and then a whole lot of other thought that goes beyond your response). I do applaud you in that you have tried to engage with others in a way that is respectful (at least from the comments I have read so far from you - thank you).

On the upgrade to v1.1.0. I want to be honest with you, there was nothing out of the ordinary for that upgrade. Every state breaking upgrade or update can be well… breaking. The issues were mitigated in a team environment with developers, mainly around reaching consensus, the consensus module froze, but a mitigation was figured out, and issues with the wasm library for some validators (which appears from the L1 after report may have played into the consensus issue as well). The upgrade, from a mitigation aspect, was actually the kind of encouraging teamwork that I have not seen in quite a long time. Anyone in the IT field knows what it is to mitigate during planned events where the best planned outcome is not the one that ends up happening (even with your best planning), and anyone in the IT field may walk away with some lessons learned in debriefing, but they would also see it as a successful event (the network is still running).

I would say that the v1.1.0 event had nothing to do with Zaradar explicitly (maybe with the exception of him owning the fulcrum of the team - in his own indirect words). While I have have my own concerns with Zaradar, I think we all knew that when we voted for the Q1 proposal that it was with the understanding that the developers were not all at Superman’s level of expertise for this specific blockchain technology (although far enough to develop, test, and release builds for this blockchain technology stack). In this Jacob has earlier acknowledged that Zaradar does know Golang well (while also disagreeing on security issue(s) that he felt could harm his business). And I will say this, as a developer, Zaradar does understand the system and has done rather extensive study on it (at other times he has benefited from the input of others - even if it did not sound like he recognized it in that manner at the time). My personal concerns were/are mainly around governance concerns, listening (which I can do better at myself), and security model, and one situation with testing on the market module, more than they were about his actual ability as a developer (and by security model I am not necessarily talking about the AllNodes incident - in all honesty there were points he made at times that were fairly correct in my estimation, but were dismissed, at other times I could see points that Jacob or others made as well).

I also know how difficult it is to keep on a Agile sprint continually. I actually favor longer deployment times (or the open understanding that if a goal is not finished in development and testing, that it rolls back into the next sprint/build and take the appropriate time on it, rather than rush, and if it is too much, to break it down further into other tasks or a story). I give it to LuncBurnArmy and the L1 team, they did a lot of work in a short period of time (for those who do not code, what may not look much to others normally goes through multiple rework, debugging, writing an acceptance test plan or in our case a code test or tests, updating the proto documents, review (go back if review shows issues), updating the documentation (which was outside the scope of the project I believe for the Quarter - although it would have been nice to have seen that in there), testing, rework, and then final testing and rework (repeating until done). There is no doubt in my mind that the team as a whole did do the work (and I would think given the amount of work, that had to have included Zaradar - even if he took on other team management tasks). I have checked the number of commits, and they appear to be pretty consistent during the Q1 timeframe and centered mainly in the classic-terra repository. Normally you develop in your own local environment in a separate branch locally and then check-in when you are at a build-able stage, and pull any current code in main that may have been merged (and repeat), and then once everything has been reviewed and tested, then you check-in again, put in your pull request (listing your branch code) and then it is merged into main/master/trunk. Not every build process works exactly like this, but it gives an idea. All that to say, sometimes commits you see in themselves are not necessarily a picture of all the work a developer does (the amount of code touched in a commit is).

The dojo was above and beyond (in other words he did this on his own time). The Terra operator, as nghuyenthevinh2000 worked on it with Zaradar, was turned into the use case of being able to use for testing that easily simulates a mainnet (for testing purposes - in terms of simulating a significant number of network operators/validators beyond what is currently available through testnet). So, that one seems directly a benefit.

The misunderstanding about EK’s side chain, which there was criticism about Zaradar mentioning that he would like to work on with EK as time permits, is one of those moments where I just find myself really wondering if people actually understand what EK was proposing doing for the chain in terms of technological value. I am concerned about AI (machine learning is a sub field of AI), as are some who actually work in the AI field (such as OpenAI’s CEO, and Elon Musk [who has asked for regulations], etc.). It can have some interesting applications, but it can also have a dark side and some scary implications in my estimation (particularly for general and super AI, in opposition to specific AI). But, as a use case, if I look at that alone. EK, if he walked off, could easily spin up a separate chain, with a month’s worth of Angel Investor meetings in IT related networks, and could potentially walk away with enough funding to probably fund his project and put that chain in a situation that could make him a millionaire. However, EK proposed to instead use his idea and experience to help THIS chain (there are other technological application specific use cases that could be used instead of AI as well). EK did not propose a separate chain, but a side-chain. Sidechains are meant to be associated with their main chains, and in this case EK, at least from what I read of his article, meant the side-chain to be used to develop on and test in without affecting the main chain. It was an idea that could help repurpose the chain in a way that does not have all the legal issues that the market module and protocol swaps have (which yes, there are legal issues that surround those). His proposed sidechain also allowed the main chain to continue to research and pursue other applications on it (such as any people who may choose to work on the repeg effort and market module, etc.). From what I understood, EK worked on this in his spare time, actually proposed himself to leave the L1 so he could focus on it, and Zaradar mentioned helping EK (I took that to mean in addition to what he and the L1 team would be paid for to accomplish if the Q2 proposal passed).

Developers are free to work on whatever they want, as long as they finish the work they asked for the grant for.

I just wanted to mention that as well, since I felt the thread, as well as a few others recently, were heading in a direction that was not always an honest picture in my mind (while also highlighting some things that I would have to agree that I have seen as well in certain areas). Constructive criticism, or actual review of Zaradar’s work (sprint1, sprint2, sprint3, sprint4, sprint5, and sprint6), or other honest concerns are good to discuss (and some of them have been mentioned), but I just think we should do that in a way that gives the same level of honesty in terms of fair acknowledgements of achievements as well as constructive criticism, and charity, we would want if it was each of us who was at the center of that review process.

Just a few thoughts for what they are worth…

I hope you all have a great day today :slight_smile:


Like always you give a constructive comment. Yes I believe that we should see the positive side of the work easy to point fingers. If we keep pointing the finger at all the stuff someone does wrong,and not acknowledged the good work done,we will lose all the brains that work on this chain,or future ones. Image a new Dev thinking to work on lunc and see what they did with the previous team. Let’s be fair he two sides . Thanks A. for you positivity.


He’s fired. This is community decision, I don’t think we should discuss it, it’s the past. We have a lot of REAL tasks (starting with repeg and restoring dapps).


Yeha, if he quit there is no point in doing this since no accountability is to be had anyways


Accurate history is that he quit on his own. No vote to remove Zaradar has passed nor has been proposed.

1 Like