Utilization of the Off-Chain Community Assets Towards LUNC’s Revitalization

Utilization of the Off-Chain Community Assets Towards LUNC’s Revitalization

PROPOSAL SUMMARY:

This is a consolidated and modified version with my view points based on the earlier proposals submitted by Alex Foreshah till the latest version shared by RabbiJebediah.

  1. Reclaim possession of the Terra Classic Community Ethereum cross chain Multisig Wallet, possessing roughly $2.4m of non-Terra assets at the time of this proposal which could vary based on market price at the date of execution. Use those assets to fund professionalized LUNC blockchain development with robust dev + community oversight.

  2. Replace the current owner slate with a new slate of 6 nominees. Nominee selection conditions explained in detail in the proposal.

  3. Signers to sell the assets and buy equivalent LUNC at a pre-defined date. Burn all the LUNC to get relieved from legal issues.

  4. Mint the exact amount of LUNC without increasing Total Supply and send it to Community Pool.

  5. Expand the Multisigs to a maximum of 9 members and set up a paid work structure.

  6. Compensation for small validators who helped revive the chain in the early stages.

PROPOSAL DETAILS:

Signer Selection Process

Volunteers applying for MultiSigs,

  • Should not have any conflict of interest.
  • Should not be a member of current Terra Rebels or Terra Grants Foundation
  • Should provide a detailed roadmap of his plans for the next 6 months.
  • Should be willing to work voluntarily for reclaiming the off-chain assets until LUNC burn and provide proof of transactions.
  • Should provide their personal details and professional accomplishments related to blockchain research / development.

Steps

  • TGF to open application for volunteers who are willing to be part of MultiSigs.
  • Review their details, proposed roadmap and decide on the top 6 Signers.
  • Publish the details of all applicants (signers), basis of selection and the finalized 6 signers who will work towards reclaiming the off-chain assets. Personal particulars can be exempted, if the Signers wish to be anonymous to general public.

Reclaim Possession of Assets & Working Structure for MultiSigs

The Terra Classic Community votes to reclaim possession of the ethereum crosschain multisig wallet [0x9538D438d506Fc426dB37fb83daC2a0752A02757] (“TC Community MultiSigs”) and all assets therein. These assets’ current USD value is roughly $2.4m at current prices which could differ at the time of execution. Any USTC that becomes available in lending pools will be extracted and burned on-chain. Click here to view asset details.

  1. Selected Signers to reclaim the assets, sell it, buy LUNC and burn it.

  2. Provide proof of all transactions publicly

  3. Expand the MultiSig to include 3 additional members to strengthen independent oversight and community participation: The new MultiSig would be a 7-of-9 (minimum of 7 ‘yes’ votes required to authorize anything, more than 2/3 of the signers should see value in the new idea / proposal).

  4. These additional members are selected from the list of top 3 applicants, who couldn’t make to the top 6 signers.

  5. TGF to work on a working structure to capture all the efforts, time spent and publish it in their website.

  6. Each Signer is entitled for payment based on their proof of work (hours spent, completion status of their roadmap et al.) that has to be reviewed & approved by Terra Grants Foundation before the governance proposal.

  7. Governance Proposal is initiated by the Signers to get funds from Community Pool.

  8. Once the governance proposal is passed, Signers will be paid for their work.

  9. Each new Signer’s obligations will include helping to create community-driven LUNC development roadmap, soliciting bids from the community to execute on pieces of said roadmap, evaluating the qualifications and track records of new projects, voting on finalists, and monitoring their work progress to completion.

  10. Clear failure of a Signer to execute his duties will result in his being voted off the MultiSig and replaced with a new Signer of the remaining Signers’ and the Community’s joint preference.

  11. If any Multisig owner believes s/he is no longer able to carry out their delegated duties, s/he commits to resign. Regardless, negligence or failure to carry out said duties will result in that Signer’s removal from the Multisig and replacement after dialogue between individual remaining Signers as well as the broader community, with a mutually acceptable replacement.

  12. Inclusion of any new signer beyond the initial 9 Signers, should have their application submitted to TGF and TGF finalises the signer as per the current process.

  13. If and when the Community agrees upon a more sustainable governance framework balancing scalability, decentralization and accountability, the balance of the MultiSig will be returned to Community possession in the most practical way possible and the MultiSig owners will relinquish their salaries, compensation, and associated duties of oversight, budgeting, and L1 dev management.

Compensation for Small Validators

20% of the LUNC minted in Community pool as part of reclaiming the off-chain assets are equally distributed to small validators (currently less than 2% Voting Power) who supported the early revival of LUNC chain recovery, i.e. before enabling the new validators.

Proposal Prepared By:,
Storm (Twitter: @5torm_V)

Payout for TR is excluded because there is already an approved proposal where the contributors will receive compensation from the 750M funds from TGF. Also TR is moving to budgeting model for all their future works. Hence, compensation for TR is covered without any issues.

What we need is a compensation for small validator who provided early support and are running at loss. Besides that the entire funding should go to future work

1 Like

I’m interested only in one thing: why did you start the governance voting without any discussion? This thread doesn’t have comments but live in Terra Station… How long will new topics and proposals about that wallet be discussed? Proposal #10936 is passed. Enogh.

1 Like

Premature Optimizers prematurely optimizing

#1 I have discussed enough with “Silence” from users and this is the same reaction for different ideas that was shared in the past couple of weeks. Unless there is a question from users like you and others from community, I don’t understand to whom you expect me to discuss with.

#2 Based on my observation, the larger community members are only interested if they hear from known popular figures in the Community. And there are few who don’t bother whatever it is. And the minority members are the few who choose to speak-up occasionally.

#3 Proposal #10936 has passed only Quorum, that means for the proposal to pass it has to reach 50% threshold after reaching Quorum.

Proposal 10936 seems to have only passed Quorum and has not met the required threshold. If I am missing something logical, correct me here with more details.

#4 This proposal is inline with the core concept of having the funds sent to community pool (as explained in prop 10936). The funds are converted to LUNC, burnt to avoid legal issues, reminted in community pool. The modifications that I made was the steps for identifying Signers, due to several ideas coming in from users, my thought was inline with Alex idea to have more Signers at the top to interact with community members and take it for execution. While Alex demanded a payout of 5K per month, I modified it to be issued only after showing proof of work and after have the efforts verified by TGF. This is a way to propose rewards for their work rather than to make a default monthly payout.

#5 Even if you prove me wrong on the proposal 10936 passing, my proposal is still an upgrade of it and not deviating from it.

#6 There are 367 members who visited this page as at the time of writing, and the only question I received is “I’m interested only in one thing: why did you start the governance voting without any discussion?” followed by a sarcastic comment by another.

Feel free to ask if you have any questions.

Governance Proposal may be prematurely posted on the basis of “Silence” but this agora post is to initiate the discussions and receive feedbacks. I am willing to work on an appropriate option so that it benefits the future work for the chain and utilizing the funds effectively.

If you are not inclined with the above idea, share your thoughts on the flaws and your ways of effective utilization so that a fruitful discussion can happen for the betterment of the chain.

Prop10936 already passed ~ this thread is unnecessary.

Thanks, After the last 2 comments, I had to check my understanding on the passing of a proposal and made note on the below.

I admit that my understanding on the Prop10936 passing was incorrect as I had also factored in the Abstain votes. Having said that, with Prop10936 passing, who and how are you guys planning to hire attorneys to oversee the legal implications? How are the signers going to be chosen?

I initiated Text proposal 10987 (with incorrect understanding) that the proposal didn’t pass, but, in this proposal I have listed out the steps to identify Signers, allocate future work for them with payments for proper proof of work, possibilities of multiple key community members at the top to work with community members widening the scope of working on multiple ideas in parallel, mentioned about providing relief to the early validators who supported the revival of the chain and are still at loss. All these with the same idea of keeping the funds in community pool, the same idea of the prop 10936 (except working with legal). What are your thoughts on the added benefits of this proposal when it is more like an upgrade to the prop 10936?

More props will follow that will get the funds into the pool. Then, more props will follow to use the funds.

Those funds belong to the community, it doesn’t matter who did what with them without community approval. If the funds are associated with wrong doings, the community should not suffer for those ‘unauthorized’ uses. If someone else was using my account and funding illegal activities, I should not be liable. That’s my take on the ‘hyped’ legal battle for the funds.

Whoever gets the key to the wallet and converts the ETH to Lunc and deposits it into the pool will be overseen by the entire community and that person’s identity should be known and proven.

Validators already have their rewards for the work they completed…

Also, we need detailed dev plans (like the one linked below) that get passed through the governance process to use the funds (already established process). Those props will come, I see none of them in your thread here.

And, we don’t need to pay the person who volunteers to get the funds from the ETH wallet to our pool.

Too many middlemen are involved with your proposal.

Think you have not made a clear look at it. Copy pasting some of the points from the above post which answers all your query. Personal details are always available with TGF as per my article. Hope this clears your doubts.

  • Mint the exact amount of LUNC without increasing Total Supply and send it to Community Pool.
  • Each Signer is entitled for payment based on their proof of work (hours spent, completion status of their roadmap et al.) that has to be reviewed & approved by Terra Grants Foundation before the governance proposal.
  • Governance Proposal is initiated by the Signers to get funds from Community Pool.
  • Once the governance proposal is passed, Signers will be paid for their work.

Volunteers applying for MultiSigs,

  • Should provide a detailed roadmap of his plans for the next 6 months.
  • Should be willing to work voluntarily for reclaiming the off-chain assets until LUNC burn and provide proof of transactions.
  • Should provide their personal details and professional accomplishments related to blockchain research / development.

Compensation for Small Validators

20% of the LUNC minted in Community pool as part of reclaiming the off-chain assets are equally distributed to small validators (currently less than 2% Voting Power) who supported the early revival of LUNC chain recovery, i.e. before enabling the new validators.

Again, a plan is already in place.

You cannot dispose of the funds (include burning) if it has a liabilities. Firstly, you must ensure that the funds are free from liabilities. If the funds are free, there is no need a burn-and-mint action, we can just exchange it and send to the CP.

Why just a signholder should make and provide a detailed roadmap? He wiil make a sign to exchange the funds and send to the CP. The end. His job is done.

It will be solve by community. Separately.

If the community owns the funds and never authorized any specific use of them - there is no other liable party than us (the community) and whatever we want to do with them we can do.

1 Like

You are right. We all must make sure of it and then do ‘whatever we want to do with’ like you said.

1 Like

More than just obtaining the funds from existing signers and sending it to community pool, I am increasing the scope of their role. The new role of multisigs will also act as a leader and moderator at the top. Community members can reach out to them, discuss their ideas. This creates a provision that multiple ideas can be discussed with multisigs in parallel. They will have this factored in their roadmap of working with projects / community members this way to have this implemented. Currently, we just have the TGE that is just set up. With 9 multisigs + TGE, 10 teams will be working with multiple ideas at the same time. To arrive at a conclusion, multisigs will discuss amongst the 9 of them to come to a consensus (where 7 out of 9 yes is required). Post which this will be shared with TGF, if the project or ideas needs funds. If no support from TGF is required, then the project / community member can work with Multisig to have it implemented. This way, we can execute more projects faster and at the same time, stay away from scammers.