Terra Rebirth League (TRL)
31 May 2022
SR
06:45
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
That only happens on Discord... where we have such infrastructure and preparations in place for that to happen.
But every time I mention this, GT people throw a 💩 emoji on my msgs 🤷
w
06:54
w36d | redacted.money | TerraBay
In reply to this message
Same for us, only that our team consists of 6 people.
06:55
That is the reason why we should come to a result quickly. (Which is also good for everyone at the same time).
SR
07:02
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
again... logistics are already in place outside of TG... we don't need to reinvent the wheel.
Want only validators to vote? You got it.
Want only founders? Sure.
Want both? Not a problem.
Perhaps multiple votes per person, or just one vote per person (in the case of multi-choice votes)? Sure thing.

All of this is already prepared and ready.
07:03
In reply to this message
agreed timing is of the essence... specially the emergency 0.5% allo.
K
07:09
Karma
Coming to conclusions quickly requires constructive input on solutions proposed above
N?
07:09
Nick | GT 🌖
In reply to this message
Are you sure only GT people threw that emoji? I don’t see any reason to name names here. Pls know your place ser
JM
07:09
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
I dont really see the issue here sir. TVL has a standard way of being calculated that is widely accepted across crypto.

As mentioned previously, happy to account for project treasuries in TVL too to mitigate this a bit
SR
07:12
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
I've been trying to be constructive where my input is valuable :)
K
07:22
Karma
I will keep summarising latest status quo because we cant expect anyone to keep up otherwise.

Out of O.5% emergency allocation for teams

75% distributed on TVL led basis (see pinned pool). @zmmac mentions we could include project treasuries in their TVL to even out the playing field.

25% for non TVL/pre launch projects - idea to base it on quadratic voting as outlined here in point 1 TBD https://t.me/c/1729598035/3599

This split is still the best discussed option so far
JM
07:23
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
Happy with 1 and 2. 3 seems like it will screw over protocols like Apollo and Spec whose product was vaults. Not sure this is fair.

4) I'm not sure I agree with and dunno how much difference it would make anyway.
S|
07:23
SuperPhly | Andromeda
TVL makes sense for protocols that lock value, but not everything in blockchain is about simply locking up value. I mean, shit, the amount of blockchain use cases outside of finance is massive. If this community ONLY cares about TVL, then we should probably make that known.
H
07:28
Hyperion
In reply to this message
Protocols like spec and apollo are using the LP tokens and the LP tokens should be included in their TVL.

I'm talking about protocols including just the pool in their TVL....

Using Anchor as an example as its excluded anyway, it should not include the ANC-UST pool on Astroport in its TVL.
GF
07:28
GJ Flannery
In reply to this message
appreciate you doing this, Karma, makes it much easier to keep up with the message flow

Saw my name/FS mentioned up above - once we settle on a method, happy to help track down the TVL
JM
07:28
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
Ah yes. We are already using the Defilama definition of TVL which excludes pool 2s
GF
07:28
GJ Flannery
for now, going to get to work as if we’re doing that, and if we change course, no harm done
JM
07:28
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
Cheers for this ser. This is my understanding also
H
07:30
Hyperion
In reply to this message
Yeah let's just sense check the defi llama data with flipside as there are some errors in it but sounds like we on same page and then hopefully we can get this moving and focus on building
A
07:30
Andreas
As voting already will lead to preferring large TVL simply by votes of those who think this is the right metric, why do the 75/25 split? Can someone explain this?
e
07:30
etienne | Setten
In reply to this message
Hey guys, I can’t find the source of your forked code base, could you point me to it?
P
07:31
Philipp | Eris Protocol
Sure https://github.com/erisprotocol/liquid-staking-contracts
e
07:31
etienne | Setten
In reply to this message
thanks 👍
DE
07:40
Daniel Eliasson ☕️
True. I was sure that one of tfl mission was to integrate blockchain to tradfi. Thats not done easy and I hope that takes in consideration.
A
08:02
Andreas
As the person from TFL who ideated together with SJ on the voting scheme, I'd be curious to hear what it is that some people don't like about it (didn't see anything in the last 1000 msgs or so).

Also happy to explain it more.

Our idea was to have something that would simply aggregate the different opinions on schemes (TVL-like, flat, team-size, etc), and protocols/teams, that people have and provide a natural cutoff towards those projects that may have a low success probability, without needing questionable manual interference from our side.

I tried to guess a few msgs above that a concern with quadratic voting is some unpredictability (compared to flat, TVL after we have the data, etc). This concern could be addressed by a veto promise: trying it out nevertheless and then doing a majority vote (1 per team and validator in discord) to accept or reject the outcome (maybe after a phase of discussion and potential adjustments of each team's votes)

Whatever the actual concerns would be, it might be possible to adjust the details scheme to accomodate them (or else for me to finally shut up about voting instead :) ) - just let us know.
Vlad invited jy
JM
08:10
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
We're still using the voting scheme for the non-TVL portion allocation as far as I understand. Don't think it makes sense to use for the entire amount
JM
08:11
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
JM
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital 29.05.2022 20:56:20
Obviously this approach is bad for Astroport and Mars but even barring that, I don't like it and prefer the original approach. Understand there are projects that had no TVL but think there are other ways to address this.

For instance, the voting mechanism could be used to distribute a small % of emergency builder allocation instead of all of it, with only projects with no TVL being eligible for voting

Imo, most of the emergency builder allocation should be distributed by TVL as referenced in the original proposal. Many teams, including Astroport, made decisions relying on the information in the original proposal
08:11
Worth noting that many teams, including Astroport, made decisions relying on the information in the original proposal
08:11
This distribution ends up disadvantaging the bigger projects who were adding most value to the network (and also have the biggest opportunity cost). Genuinely think there are better ways to address concerns regarding projects with no TVL (who I def agree also deserve something btw)
MH
08:12
Magic H
In reply to this message
Ser, it took me a while to fully understand how it works and turn to support it with my little brain. Personal opinion: several concrete examples/simulator of the formula might help people to understand quadratic voting better (feel free to ignore this if this is not a problem for others)
A
08:13
Andreas
In reply to this message
Hmm, thanks for your feedback - although I think Astroport and Mars are such big names that the voting (which forces people to allocate to other teams) would be really good for them?
08:16
In reply to this message
Maybe we are talking about different things - for now, I only refer to the 0.5% emergency allocation, which rather did not reference TVL as some people have pointed out
Vlad invited João Filipe
Vlad invited Ana Preto
Terranaut | GT joined group by link from Group
JM
08:25
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
Can we confirm this is the full list of projects w/ TVL launching on Terra v2?

Terraswap
Spectrum Protocol
ApolloDAO
Nexus Protocol
Astroport
Stader
White Whale
PRISM Protocol
Edge Protocol
Mars Protocol
Risk Harbor
Angel Protocol
Aperture Finance
08:25
@sjpark19
w
08:29
w36d | redacted.money | TerraBay
In reply to this message
we will likely have locked value (for mixing pools) after launch if thats the q/
SP
08:45
SJ Park 🌖
gm all
V
08:45
Vlad
Gm☀️
GF
08:46
GJ Flannery
gm
SP
08:48
SJ Park 🌖
In reply to this message
just to make sure we’re all on the same page, this is meant to be a list of protocols committed to building on Terra 2.0, who had TVL on Terra 1.0?
JM
08:49
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
Yes
T
08:49
Tundra V1
Gm
E
08:49
Eloi | Talis
Gm
e
08:51
etienne | Setten
In reply to this message
With Mars launching on its own app chain with support for juno and osmosis on launch, would it still apply to the emergency allocation? 🤔

Edit: cosmos, not juno*
T
08:51
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
How do others feel about this? Still think MC/FDV should be included in the distro model. This is to better orient for prpjects that may have had a very high TVL, but lackluster value in other ways
SP
08:52
SJ Park 🌖
yup — that list seems right to me

for Mars, should it be excluded from the emergency allocation as it’s now building primarily its Mars Hub on Osmosis?
08:52
etienne beat me to it
JM
08:52
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
This is a fair discussion to have. To be clear, Mars isn't supporting Juno, only Osmosis. This is because there are no assets on Terra v2 that pass Mars's risk framework. As soon as there are assets that pass the liquidity threshold, the team will look to launch again
SP
08:53
SJ Park 🌖
In reply to this message
i think it can certainly qualify for the other builder allocations, assuming community/governance support fwiw
e
08:54
etienne | Setten
In reply to this message
ah yes mb, it said support for atom as an asset, somehow read juno
GF
08:54
GJ Flannery
Photo
Not included, change data exporting settings to download.
1280×373, 74.6 KB
T
08:54
Tundra V1
yep, if part of the requirement is launching a product on T2 - Mars probs wouldnt fit right? Would be equiv to maybe Kujira
GF
08:54
GJ Flannery
^ going to pin this for ease of access, as I find myself referring to it frequently and others might as well
GJ Flannery pinned this message
T
08:55
Tundra V1
but maybe would be up for distro of the 1.5% based on some review
A
08:58
Andreas
In reply to this message
the ideas sound good, but it's not easy to have everyone agree that a certain model is best. There will always be people wanting some changes of every parameter either way
08:59
direct voting is less objective but the objectivity of a model is sort of fake, given these issues of converging
T
09:00
Tundra V1
Just dont think certain protocols are being evaluated properly by ignoring MC as a metric. MC is how the community collectively values certain teams & projects, I think it's rationale to include it as a data point
A
09:02
Andreas
In reply to this message
To be clear, I am comparing your proposal to the voting idea, where you 1) would be free to use your reasoning distributing your own votes and 2) you could / should advertise your way of voting to all others
T
09:03
Tundra V1
Also don't think that teams with tokens that are primarily on Ethereum (other chains) should be included for this either. Idk, just looking at the distro model it seems off.
JM
09:03
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
Fwiw, a few of the protocols on the list are launching elsewhere also. In addition, a few protocols on the list don't have products on Terra v2 yet and will have to reformulate (Nexus, White Whale). This is a similar position to what Mars is in where it is unable to list assets on its money market until the network is mature enough and has enough liquidity
T
09:03
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
Nexus has nexPrism from Day1 (convex atop Prism). This isn't reliant on Anchor & will likely have rev from very early on
09:04
Thank god we shipped when we did 🙂 happy to be able to state that as such
JM
09:05
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
Fair
K
09:06
Karma
In reply to this message
I am just going to throw it into the mix that if we were to look at MC as a metric, one could argue for valuation of NFT projects as Floor price × supply, resulting in projects like GP having a MC of around 30 MIL. The problem here is that everything is subjective. This inherent subjectivity of any metric could be an argument for voting as proposed by @sjpark19 and @nullptr0x0
H
09:07
Hyperion
think we're basically there on the 75% of the 0.5% - keen to get this moving so we can get building
A
09:07
Andreas
Exactly, Karma. The objectivity of a metric is only apparent
T
09:07
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
I think illiquid projects still should be covered under the 25% as laid out. Tbh I think GP's will get nice decent sized allocation, not fully sure yet - havent seen the vote breakdown but
09:08
just my inclination
K
09:12
Karma
Regardless of personal opinions on NFTs here, they can become an important value prop for new Terra, and important projects + Infra (RE, knowhere) need to be helped to restart as part of the 25% non TVL emergency allo
T
09:13
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
I need my GPs to be up and running on the new chain ❤️
JL
09:13
Jimmy Le
In reply to this message
Agreed, I get that the 0.5% is enough to defib a lot of teams back to life - but let’s keep our eye on the remaining 9.5% incentive to add value to the space.

Let projects choose to be in the 75% TVL or 25% non TVL bucket.

Will be sad if we can launch a chain in 2 weeks but not distribute 0.5% of supply in 2 weeks.
T
09:13
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
think you've been a great advocate for the GPs btw
SP
09:15
SJ Park 🌖
so ideally, we are able to reach consensus on the method over the next 24 hours if possible

seems there’s general consensus on:
- a hybrid approach of TVL-based and vote-based distribution
- Luna allocation to be spread out over 30 days to smooth out liquidity event (sound ok to everyone?)

seems we need to finalize:
- definition of key variables (30-day TVL leading upto Terra Classic block 7544910? Market cap consideration?)
- TVL data (can everyone get to agreement on objective dataset?)
- breakdown of emergency allocation (75% TVL-based, 25% vote-based?)
- rules within allocations (33% max cap for any project in TVL-based allocation? 10% max cap for any vote-based allocations?)
- eligibility of teams to be included in the vote-based allocation
T
09:16
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
nice job SJ
H
09:16
Hyperion
In reply to this message
good summary ser - looks good
T
09:17
Tundra V1
I think we should also verify specifically which teams are eligable for this .5%
V
09:17
Vlad
For what we still need to finalize, let's focus on one point at a time
09:17
What key variables can we define for the math-based distribution?
JM
09:18
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
From yesterday's discussion, it seems there was consensus around TVL + treasury
T
09:19
Tundra V1
teams that have tokens that are primarily on other chains or that have recently raised large rounds maybe shouldnt be included in this emergency allo distribution
09:19
I think Stader falls into that bucket
V
09:19
Vlad
Treasury including project token?
A|
09:20
AG | Stader | Will not dm for money
I just think people should refrain from making suggestions that are subjective and don’t serve any purpose
09:21
Probably better for a constructive discussion. Else everyone gets to a different pov.
T
09:21
Tundra V1
actually the suggestion very much serves a purpose
A|
09:21
AG | Stader | Will not dm for money
Probably for you and not for everyone
T
09:21
Tundra V1
Stader raised like 15-20mm on coinlist
A|
09:22
AG | Stader | Will not dm for money
And I just think you should refrain from personally attacking teams etc.
T
09:22
Tundra V1
questioning if they should be included in this emergency runway discussion at all tbh
A|
09:22
AG | Stader | Will not dm for money
That doesn’t show how much of the treasury is lost due to deposits in ust etc
T
09:22
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
Im not personally attacking teams, I just think that the inclusion of Stader in the current form is super inappropriate
JM
09:23
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
Nope - I think we agreed to remove this as it would just skew distribution more towards larger projects like Mars/Astro
V
09:23
Vlad
Awesome
A|
09:23
AG | Stader | Will not dm for money
So best to stick to objective criteria. For the purpose of being objective, let’s refrain from making random suggestions.
V
09:23
Vlad
In reply to this message
I'll note every agreed upon point down
09:24
How can we define TVL?
T
09:25
Tundra V1
I think objectively speaking because Stader is already very well funded, and that their gov token is on ethereum - they should not be included in this emergency allocation. Would be happy to leave it up to a vote
A|
09:26
AG | Stader | Will not dm for money
In reply to this message
I would refrain from arguing things like this. If I bring up points like teams not being clear about what they are building etc. all would bring personal and subjective opinions
09:26
I don’t know what purpose it serves
P|
09:26
Panterra0x | Bites Digital Group
In reply to this message
This is the most important question to focus on right now.
T
09:27
Tundra V1
Tbh I think state of Stader inclusion vs not is super important thing to lock in on. They represent a huge portion of the distribution currently
V
09:27
Vlad
Every project has a different definition of TVL
09:27
In reply to this message
Let's move this discussion to later
09:28
We should focus on TVL for now
P|
09:28
Panterra0x | Bites Digital Group
In reply to this message
@anonsleepy your pvp crusade is a bit of a sidetrack given we don't even know what % they will get without defining TVL
T
09:28
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
not pvp to be clear. Think we are locked in on TVL no?
V
09:28
Vlad
Yes we are, but what *is* TVL?
09:28
How do you define it?
T
09:29
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
^ TVL as reported thru our 3 credible data points (DefiLama, FS, and Delphi)
V
09:29
Vlad
Do we agree on this?^
09:31
Can those 3 data providers exclude the projects' own tokens?
JM
09:32
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
Treasuries will have to be queried separately
09:32
Will need the teams to send their treasury contracts
T
09:32
Tundra V1
in terms of TVL inclusion of LPs, if a project wants to include their LPs, maybe they need to align on that with Astroport seperately?
JM
09:33
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
Pool 2s should be excluded from TVL calculations imo, as per the Defilama methodology
T
09:33
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
^
V
09:33
Vlad
If the treasuries are queried separately, do they also fall into TVL?
T
09:33
Tundra V1
Hyperions notes from earlier:

So I think for the TVL calcs we should:

1. include only protocols launching on Terra v2
2. include only protocols whose governance token was a cw20
3. TVL should not include liquidity pools that are also being included in Astroport's TVL. If protocols feel strongly that there is a special reason their liquidity pool should be included in their TVL then they can make the case to Astroport to exclude it and for the protocol to include it. This avoids double counting.
4. aUST in TVL should be excluded given there will be no anchor farming
5. And regarding people's comments on Stader - @agajjala - let me know what you think but maybe for Stader its fairest to use LUNAx TVL as the rest of the TVL from DEFI Llama was either on other chains or was just simple LUNA staking and wouldn't be fair to include this but exclude all validators who were doing the same.
09:34
In reply to this message
I think all of these are reasonable
09:34
still up for conversation on Staders general inclusion in this in general - but aside from that
SJ
09:37
Sebastian J
Liquidity pools should only be included if they are owned by the treasury i.e. POL, and only the UST half of the pool should be included, not the native token side
V
09:37
Vlad
Points 3 and 4 are up for debate in this particular conversation

The rest we can talk about later since they don't fall under defining TVL in general
09:38
And partially 5
09:38
Logically, TVL would only include Terra-native TVL
09:38
I think we can all agree on that
SJ
09:39
Sebastian J
In reply to this message
We can send our treasury contract address to whomever needs it. If it helps, we can also try to help provide the backing value of the treasury (value less native tokens) at any given time
T
09:40
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
seems whitewhale would have that as a 1off, they had a large POL treasury. Not sure if there were any other teams with that sizeable of a POL treasury
JM
09:40
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
My suggestion:

1. Flipside (@Sunslinger ) pull TVL data as a neutral third party. This should be TVL on Terra, excluding pool 2s. All projects referenced check the data and confirm this matches their own data.
2. We query treasury data separately. This should be treasury value without including native tokens. Community discusses and ratifies this.
3. Add treasury data to TVL and yield final numbers. Projects + Flipside + Community ratify these numbers and we use them as final
V
09:41
Vlad
In reply to this message
Any objections to this?
JM
09:41
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
Think the treasury mainly applies to Apollo and Whitewhale. The numbers are fairly small in the scheme of things and shouldn't make much difference to the final numbers
SJ
09:41
Sebastian J
In reply to this message
Apollo similar situation
V
09:42
Vlad
Jose, are you removing Delphi as a TVL data point?
M|
09:45
Matt B | aka 0xdef1
Regarding data source, TVL has a lot of nuance, but thankfully most of this has already been hashed out by DefiLlama methodology (and is free and open to inspect in this repo: https://github.com/DefiLlama/DefiLlama-Adapters/tree/main/projects). I would suggest that Flipside supplement this data with other data points (e.g. treasuries or other edge cases)
JM
09:45
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
I just think it'd be better from a third party like Defilama / Flipside
V
09:46
Vlad
awesome
09:46
How about both?
H
09:47
Hyperion
Flipside
09:47
Defi llama data was incorrect
09:48
Or we adjust defi llama for obvious inaccuracies
M|
09:49
Matt B | aka 0xdef1
In reply to this message
Starting from scratch would be prohibitively time consuming imo, so yea I think Flipside correcting obvious inaccuracies makes sense
H
09:50
Hyperion
Should be pretty easy to populate a spreadsheet
V
09:52
Vlad
Do we have reps from DL/FS that can start this process up for us?
M|
09:52
Matt B | aka 0xdef1
In reply to this message
@Sunslinger
V
09:55
Vlad
Ok so
09:55
- TVL
- without project token
- as defined by DefiLlama, FS
- excluding pool 2s
- projects check data and confirm this matches their own data
- Treasuries queried separately
- Treasury added to TVL
09:55
Good on this?
09:55
If so, let's move onto the next point
T
09:56
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
looks accurate to me ser
V
09:56
Vlad
Fire, let's continue
09:56
If there are any objections while we move on, lmk and we can discuss afterwards
09:57
Our next point of discussion is the breakdown of emergency allo

As it stands, we talked about 75% TVL-based, 25% vote-based

Does this ratio make sense to everyone?
p
09:58
pmp
There are 5M LUNA on the emergency supply.
V
09:59
Vlad
How do we decide what project gets placed into what category?
09:59
Is it through each projects' discretion?
p
09:59
pmp
At the rate of ~9USD, that's 45M usd
JM
09:59
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
It's whether they have any TVL or not sir
p
09:59
pmp
I strongly suggest that this is divided 100% accross all projects that were building on Terra, including NFT projects, smaller projects, etc.
T
10:00
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
we're kinda far beyond that sir
A|
10:00
AG | Stader | Will not dm for money
In reply to this message
Yes there are buckets to categorise this
V
10:00
Vlad
Are NFT projects considered TVL?
p
10:00
pmp
In reply to this message
Why are we beyond that? The vote should be with 1 person per team. that did not happen.
JM
10:00
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
No
T
10:00
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
no, dont think so
V
10:00
Vlad
@Karma181 do you agree with the no?
10:00
Along with any other GP rep
S|
10:07
SuperPhly | Andromeda
So unlaunched projects get access to 25% of the emergency funds and already launched projects get 75%. Am I right on that?
T
10:07
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
to be more specific, the 75% is for launched projects with TVL
S|
10:08
SuperPhly | Andromeda
So projects that already TGE’d and have probably shut down their engineering.
T
10:08
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
do you have any specific projects in mind? Not sure who you're referring to
S|
10:09
SuperPhly | Andromeda
Well, let’s use Mirror for instance. It’s probably not receiving funds at all, so it’s a good straw man.
T
10:09
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
all TFL projects are out of consideration for any of this
S|
10:10
SuperPhly | Andromeda
Right, which is why I’m using it.
e
10:10
etienne | Setten
In reply to this message
I can't pinpoint what other solutions would work well, but somehow it feels wrong that projects who have already most of their development done and paid for in the past + have a commercial product with fee structures accruing them good benefits from day one of their relaunch get the biggest part of the emergency fund.
I guess it's paying them to not migrate on another chain or something?
S|
10:11
SuperPhly | Andromeda
In reply to this message
Exactly what I was trying to say.
V
10:12
Vlad
@SuperPhly would you like to propose an alternative distribution?
T
10:12
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
tbh I kinda see it the other way around
10:12
teams that shipped & aquired significant TVL & had larger MCs should be considered important to keep around
10:13
pretty much the exact opposite of what you're describing
e
10:14
etienne | Setten
In reply to this message
I think we’re describing the same thing, paying to keep them around
T
10:14
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
partially that, partially to align incentives
Miguel | Founder at Pulsar Finance joined group by link from Group
S|
10:15
SuperPhly | Andromeda
In reply to this message
Sounds like the way cities are held hostage by NFL teams not wanting to pay for a stadium.
10:15
Too big to fail
T
10:15
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
Are NFL teams not important?
Leland $TFLOKI | Never DM you joined group by link from Group
T
10:16
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
not to big to fail
V
10:17
Vlad
Is there an alternative proposal for the ratio other than 75:25?
T
10:18
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
not one that will likely recieve a nod from me (just my 2 cents)
V
10:18
Vlad
I haven't seen any at all
10:19
Do we have a list of TVL and non-TVL projects?
K
10:19
Karma
In reply to this message
This cannot be just up to me.

We have two votes against.
Let me think out loud. If talking about Marketcap I would say yes - no matter if CW20 or CW721, it represents a share of the project value. But TVL signifies locked value - when selling/buying an NFT, the LUNA is exchanging hands, so I struggle to see the NFT price as locked value aggregator. It's down to semantics but gut feeling says no.

I would say no to TVL BUT we must include NFT projects in the non TVL 25% emergency allocation part.
T
10:20
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
ofc ofc - GP absolutely should be included in the non TVL 25% allo
M
10:20
Mike | Astral | Will not DM you
In reply to this message
Would be a good first step imo. And maybe a preliminary look at the TVL split?
K
10:21
Karma
In reply to this message
It would be interesting to revisit this split once we actually have a finalised list of projects/ see what ratio would look like as per flipside data
M
10:22
Mike | Astral | Will not DM you
In reply to this message
Agreed 100% data first then discussion on split
T
10:23
Tundra V1
why would the data impact the split?
L
10:23
Luc | Orne.io
In reply to this message
clearly i can't agree with point 3 since Astroport claimed when i asked that my TVL was their and that we need to figure out if it should be double counted
10:23
we definitly can't double count TVL
M
10:24
Mike | Astral | Will not DM you
In reply to this message
Because after agreeing split people will argue over TVL definition
T
10:24
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
dont we have TVL defintion here?
10:25
Jose's suggestion:

1. Flipside (@Sunslinger ) pull TVL data as a neutral third party. This should be TVL on Terra, excluding pool 2s. All projects referenced check the data and confirm this matches their own data.
2. We query treasury data separately. This should be treasury value without including native tokens. Community discusses and ratifies this.
3. Add treasury data to TVL and yield final numbers. Projects + Flipside + Community ratify these numbers and we use them as final
JM
10:28
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
Respectfully sir there are agreed upon definitions of TVL. See @mattbridges's post below:

"Regarding data source, TVL has a lot of nuance, but thankfully most of this has already been hashed out by DefiLlama methodology (and is free and open to inspect in this repo: https://github.com/DefiLlama/DefiLlama-Adapters/tree/main/projects). I would suggest that Flipside supplement this data with other data points (e.g. treasuries or other edge cases)"

If you have a problem with the definition please feel free to suggest a different one. That said, I have no idea how we'd remove all the TVL that different people/projects added to Astroport.

As mentioned, I think it makes sense to include LP tokens in treasury held as POL as part of TVL (accounted for in step 2 above).
e
10:28
etienne | Setten
In reply to this message
In that case aligning incentives sounds a lot like … well … paying them to stay around
Don’t get me wrong, they are really valuable to the ecosystem and they should be considered as such. But I think some ceiling or dampening could be good
K
10:30
Karma
In reply to this message
I think this is why we should have a look at what potential numbers look like once Flipside provides data. Makes no sense discussing potential caps before that?
T
10:31
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
re. caps - agree
V
10:31
Vlad
Yep
e
10:31
etienne | Setten
In reply to this message
Yes, makes sense!
S
10:31
Seb
In reply to this message
TVL being on Terra - meaning Risk Harbor is off the list then ?
V
10:33
Vlad
Okay, so until we get a list of teams and projects that fall under both categories, we can postpone the breakdown ration and potential max caps
Jared | TFL invited Terra Dactyl
V
10:33
Vlad
But to create such a list, let's talk about the eligibility of teams to be included in the list
T
10:33
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
still not sure why the split (75/25) would change after seeing the breakdown
M
10:33
Miguel | Founder at Pulsar Finance
In reply to this message
Pulsar Finance would also be excluded on a TVL only basis, we have been working on this project for almost 1 year, all our team funds were lost and we invested tons of resources into building a great dashboard for Terra.
e
10:33
etienne | Setten
In reply to this message
I guess so
Jared | TFL invited Yash 🌕 | TFL
M
10:34
Mike | Astral | Will not DM you
In reply to this message
We don't even know how many teams are in the 25%
V
10:34
Vlad
We don't
Jared | TFL invited Block Foundry
T
10:35
Tundra V1
sure, but if thats back open for discussion I just dont see how we're going to get to the finish line anytime soon
K
10:35
Karma
In reply to this message
Many teams are in this situation, including mine. We are aligning incentives here to help everyone, in a game of unsatisfying compromises. Wagmi. There will be a pool for TVL based and non TVL based projects.
M
10:35
Miguel | Founder at Pulsar Finance
In reply to this message
Should we perhaps have a list of all TVL / non-TVL projects that are launching on Terra 2.0?
V
10:38
Vlad
Yes we should
JM
10:39
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
This is the initial list of TVL projects. Can someone put together a list of non-TVL projects?
V
10:40
Vlad
access denied
M
10:40
Miguel | Founder at Pulsar Finance
In reply to this message
Requested access
GF
10:40
GJ Flannery
sec
H
10:42
Hyperion
We've agreed so for the 75% it's just ironing out the tvl. Can someone pin SJ and Jose's relevant parts
GF
10:42
GJ Flannery
fixed; can use this as a baseline to add/edit/pare down
H
10:42
Hyperion
Which we're now doing with Flipside/defi llama
V
10:44
Vlad
In reply to this message
We haven't yet fully agreed on a split
10:44
Decided to postpone that conversation until a list is made
H
10:44
Hyperion
See SJ's message above
GJ Flannery pinned this message
L
10:48
Luc | Orne.io
In reply to this message
Sir, you are basically saying that because i didn't want to reinvent the wheel and make my own DEX just to swap a token, to facilitate integration in station and coinhall, you should make the fruit of my work yours.
Sorry but you didn't choose to create a pair on Astroport for our token, we did. We are the one who picked astroport as a house as we believed it was part of the futur of terra. Does it mean that my project is yours?
We worked hard to attract people and TVL, it means spending money on marketing, it means spending money on incentive to increase liquidity and reduce volatility. My project did that, not Astroport.
Yes, we obtained ASTRO incentive few days before crash and i would gladly share part of our share with Astroport, but i refuse that you take it all. You are just killing my project here.
T
10:49
Tundra V1
Should these convos be happening in such a big group?
10:49
Just not sure tbh
Y
10:49
Yash 🌕 | TFL
In reply to this message
Ideally, in my opinion TVL is anything and everything that’s staked on a platform.

It’s a project relative marketing success and trust that invited users to lock in Luna in some form.

It requires a tons of effort I believe and a lot of support from community to achieve that.
T
10:50
Tundra V1
I think we need a more focused group with a bit more clear voice & input from the projects that were around building Terra for a long time
10:50
this open forum convo doesnt seem to be as effective as it should be
H
10:51
Hyperion
Agreed. It's a mess in here.

Let's iron out the TVL calcs in a smaller group of the projects @zmmac listed so we can move on and focus on building

The 25% allocated by vote can happen at same time so everyone included in that can move on as well
V
10:52
Vlad
We still need a list of projects that are included in both
10:52
Otherwise, how are you planning on making that group?
H
10:53
Hyperion
Group 1 is the projects listed.
CS
10:53
Chauncey St. John 🌔😇 | Angel Protocol
I still believe that a larger split towards non-TVL/unlaunched projects and/or a fairly strict value cap is necessary for "emergency runway funding"...again, this is directly counter to my & Angel's best interests as well as most of the loudest voices in here...but it feels wrong to give uncapped 75% of this allocation to already-launched protocols who already have *exclusive* rights to a full 1.5% and a head start on the remaining 8%. I won't argue this point further, but feel like we're losing the spirit of this allocation a bit
Y
10:53
Yash 🌕 | TFL
I believe , we should strategise from product success point of view in the past.

For Terra to be where it was in terms of TVL is going to take sometime as we are short of market cap.

But I believe dividing what form had brought TVL is not the right question, who could attract more number of users/Luna in some form will lead to a right argument.
p
10:53
pmp
In reply to this message
That discussion was not closed. Did you ask all the groups that are waiting for Emergency allocation what they think?
A
10:54
AtoZ (Will not DM first)
In reply to this message
It is a mess because people disagree with your POV?
p
10:54
pmp
Make the vote on discord for the %
10:54
1 team = 1 vote
A
10:54
AtoZ (Will not DM first)
I am sorry, but it seems that this discussion is only driven by people that highly benefits from the current proposal.
10:54
and they want to shut down the discussion to a private group now.
SR
10:54
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
If we have just one founder per team, then we have a group that is 50% smaller than this TG chst.
And guess what, that group already exists (on Discord, ofc).
If you wanna create an equivalent on TG, by all means go ahead and spend time on that, but I think this is already a massive waste of time, and we should be more effective.
p
10:55
pmp
Yes, just like Terra Builders Alliance, no Tundra?
T
10:55
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
it’s driven by people who have been building on Terra with significant skin in the game for a long time. Tbh, I’m not sure who you are
10:55
In reply to this message
Or you for that matter
SR
10:55
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
We should have meta-governance votes already happening on Discord, so we can at least assess a temperature check.
A
10:55
AtoZ (Will not DM first)
In reply to this message
You mean by people who got the time to release something and already got a working product for Terra V2?
10:55
What about all the project that were building for Terra V1 and didn't got the time to release something in time?
a
10:56
anon intern
Maybe we should just not have the emergency fund and let the whole 10% be up to vote under the same metrics
SR
10:56
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
How can we "agree" that 75-25 is the fair split, when all we see are messages on this group across different timezones, and multiple votes from the same teams?
A
10:56
AtoZ (Will not DM first)
In reply to this message
You know, those who need this money.
T
10:56
Tundra V1
Lol
10:56
This is kinda funny tbh
SR
10:56
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
(I'm not saying I don't agree, I'm saying this governance method is flawed)
A
10:56
AtoZ (Will not DM first)
and before you say something. I am not affiliated to any of those project.
p
10:56
pmp
In reply to this message
Tundra, you were crying on twitter spaces that you lost everything.. and suddenly after your Terra Builders Alliance pull (with no one knowing who was there), you suddenly came out and ask as the big man/decision maker!
T
10:56
Tundra V1
So many voices
10:56
In reply to this message
Who are you?
p
10:56
pmp
In reply to this message
Yes, its called democracy.
V
10:57
Vlad
Okay everyone, let's step back from the personal attacks
K
10:57
Karma
Snap out of it everyone, this is equivalent of a coordinated temper tantrum. Lets stay on topic.
A
10:57
AtoZ (Will not DM first)
In reply to this message
Yes, so many voices against the decision of the 3 big players that got all the benefits. lol.
Y
10:57
Yash 🌕 | TFL
When we talk about Fair , I think two most important aspect that comes out is :

1. Every project building should get some percentage

2. The projects with higher user/tvl in any form should be placed a little higher for the commitment and effort they have shown

There will always be groups trying to get more share and that’s normal citing the current situation , but we should think it from neutral point of view :)
V
10:58
Vlad
Let's make a new chat, one representative per project, and we can have votes in that chat
p
10:58
pmp
In reply to this message
Thats already done. on Discord!
a
10:58
anon intern
I don’t think this is the proper way to split up like 50m 😅 seems like a mess waiting to happen and if we don’t all hate each other by the end of this stupid .5% it’ll be worthless when nobody wants to work together
DK
10:58
David Koh
btw, we definitely should keep some allocation for totally new projects down the line also
SR
10:58
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
I'm fully in support of this...
G
10:58
Gabriel Shapiro | GC Delphi Labs
In reply to this message
Many good ideas or at least interesting sentiments in here.

This one, however, I think should be off-limits. A governance proposal was passed as a bundle--it was the core proposal for the founding of Terra 2. I don't think we can cherry-pick different aspects of it to honor and not honor at this stage.

It included this emergency fund, I think the allocation has to be honored.
T
10:58
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
Agree
10:59
In reply to this message
That’s part of the 8% already laid out for future projects
V
10:59
Vlad
So we use Discord for voting yes?
SR
10:59
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
It is very explicitly written on the Agora post that passed that the emergency allocation was for teams that hadn't had the opportunity to launch yet and need a few more months of runway to be able to launch (and return it back in case they can't do it under 1y).
CS
10:59
Chauncey St. John 🌔😇 | Angel Protocol
at current price you could give 50 different projects 1%, they'd all receive $450K, and you could still split up another 50% by TVL of launched projects
SR
10:59
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
Yes, please.
H
10:59
Hyperion
Don't think so
T
10:59
Tundra V1
Don’t think so either
H
10:59
Hyperion
How do we decide who gets a vote.....
V
11:00
Vlad
One representative per project
SR
11:00
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
1 founder per team.
p
11:00
pmp
Why shouldnt we use discord? there is 1 founder per team there!
SR
11:00
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
It's how it's already set up.
H
11:00
Hyperion
In reply to this message
Which projects you including
p
11:00
pmp
1 team can only vote once!
H
11:00
Hyperion
What defines a project
T
11:00
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
Who are you please?
SR
11:00
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
And was previously agreed upon by all the protocols who participated on early discussions (most).
Cle4ncuts | DeFi Doctor (YFD) joined group by link from Group
T
11:00
Tundra V1
What project do you work with etc
C(
11:00
Cle4ncuts | DeFi Doctor (YFD)
Hey everyone
11:00
Clean from YFD here
a
11:00
anon intern
In reply to this message
“Governance vote”
p
11:01
pmp
In reply to this message
I represent one project amongst many in Terra - TFM.com
a
11:01
anon intern
But yeah agreed could look bad to go back ok it, not like we changed it mid vote or anything either
T
11:01
Tundra V1
Need smaller group
H
11:01
Hyperion
150k people in the terra telegram - maybe some of them got projects they were going to launch as well and should be included
p
11:01
pmp
The 0.5% emergency supply should be voted per all Terra teams - projects that built on Terra, including NFT projects.
T
11:02
Tundra V1
We need a smaller more focused group lol
H
11:02
Hyperion
Let's focus on getting TVL on new terra
p
11:02
pmp
TVL comes from users. NFT projects from Galactic to Hero, Skeleton Punks, etc bring a lot of retail.. what is needed!
DK
11:02
David Koh
What about putting a governance vote on-chain?
a
11:03
anon intern
We need liquidity or nothing will work
M
11:03
Miguel | Founder at Pulsar Finance
Why was the previous approach rejected? The number of votes one
SR
11:03
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
That chat already exists.
Y
11:03
Yash 🌕 | TFL
I would suggest make 3 tiers of TVL
0-500mn
500mn - 1bn
1bn+

In any form they invited this TVL it requires a lot of community trust and if this is not done it would discourage the commitment they had shown earlier which isn’t good for us in anyways 🤷🏻‍♂️

We have to rebuild but most importantly rebuild together

1. Some fixed percent to all builders

2. Remaining distributed on TVL tiers
p
11:03
pmp
A lot of the liquidity before on Terra was granted to projects. Astroport for example was given the LP from Anchor, Pylon and Mirror.
Any project that was granted that would have had a lot of TVL
V
11:04
Vlad
In reply to this message
We decided on a hybrid approach
H
11:04
Hyperion
In reply to this message
That was a governance vote
a
11:04
anon intern
How else you think they got the liquidity ? Astro rewards
V
11:04
Vlad
Part TVL and part voting
p
11:04
pmp
Yes, but nonetheless its the case.
11:04
And also we should definitely speak of projects that TFL helped to build.
a
11:04
anon intern
Yeah otherwise those projects would not work if you could not swap with deep pools
p
11:05
pmp
If any project had TFL engineers building them, those projects TVL etc should be put in question.
11:05
TFL Moonshots/etc
SR
11:05
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
@vladjdk let's decide on what to vote (what options to put up to vote), if it's multi-choice or single, and how long to leave it open for.
a
11:05
anon intern
Nothing works without deep liquidity, that should be the first focus here
T
11:05
Tundra V1
Dont think everyone should be allowed to have a voice in these discussions tbh.

I dont get to call up Joe Biden and let him know how I think he's doing in Ukraine.
M
11:05
Miguel | Founder at Pulsar Finance
In reply to this message
What was the reason behind it? Seems TVL and hybrid approach only created a huge mess tbh
T
11:05
Tundra V1
Democracy doesnt mean everyone has an equal voice
11:05
your voice isnt the same as Gary Genslers
p
11:05
pmp
Every project in Terra should have an equal voice regarding emergency supply.
TD
11:05
Terra Dactyl
I run a validator so I have no stake in getting part of the emergency project allocation. That being said my understanding is that the purpose of the emergency allocation is to port projects to Terra 2.0 and keep building. While TVL/mCap/tx volume/etc. are important metrics, I would rather see projects layout roadmaps and tell the community what $$ resources they need to get back up and running and become successful again
T
11:06
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
strongly disagree
11:06
super strongly disagree actually
p
11:06
pmp
A fund with 100s of millions AUM shouldnt get the same emergency supply as normal projects
T
11:06
Tundra V1
I can list the teams I think should be included in these conversations right now
p
11:06
pmp
Well, all projects on Terra should have a chance to vote on this
11:06
and then if the 'bigger' projects or whatever u wanna call it wanna do differetly, then its for the record.
T
11:07
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
disagree
SR
11:07
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
I would say...:

0.5% emergency allocation:
- TVL vs. non-TVL:
. 80-20 split
. 75-25 split
. 70-25 split
. 50-50 split
. even split regardless of TVL

And then:
vesting for emergency alloc.:
. no vesting;
. 15d linear vesting;
. 30d linear vesting;


Would these be good points, or should we add more?
And we can see which one gets the most votes.
p
11:07
pmp
And its up to each individual project on Terra to know how things have happened..
11:07
No more working behind closed doors, and then coming up here you go.. you got 0.0000%
11:07
nope
JM
11:07
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
In reply to this message
There is only one project in the last two of those categories. Tbh I don't think anyone had a problem with splitting based on TVLL
p
11:07
pmp
thats gone
Y
11:07
Yash 🌕 | TFL
TVL is important and a constant war whether TFL helped or not. I think it requires constant marketing and interaction with community that these projects have done in the past.

This requires a lot of manual effort apart from development. This requires a lot of resources and man power
p
11:07
pmp
and ignoring what I am writing and continue as if its nothing, wont help either
11:07
All projects on Terra should be made aware of what is being discussed here!
T
11:07
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
I will just keep saying how much I disagree with you
JM
11:08
Jose Maria Macedo | Delphi Digital
We agreed on a split between TVL and non-TVL projects. It seems the percentage is up for discussion again
p
11:08
pmp
In reply to this message
you should echo one disagreement per team.
H
11:08
Hyperion
We need an objective metric and that's why TVL was chosen
Y
11:08
Yash 🌕 | TFL
In reply to this message
I agree , shedding a lil like a 0.1-0.2% additional in that case shouldn’t be that hard sir
V
11:08
Vlad
Btw folks, I'll be putting in a slow mode to prevent circular argumentative discussions
11:08
Fair warning for those spamming out small abrasive messages
SR
11:09
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
@vladjdk can I start writing and preparing this vote on Discord?
A
11:09
AtoZ (Will not DM first)
One question that must be asked to projects are: Do you need this allocation to rebuild your project?

I mean, the goal of this emergency allocation is to help projects that need those funds to build. It is not for already-released product that are ready to publish on this blockchain and only want more money.
T
11:10
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
no - dont think Discord voting makes sense *at all*
A
11:10
AtoZ (Will not DM first)
In reply to this message
Why?
M
11:10
Miguel | Founder at Pulsar Finance
What if there are 10 TVL projects and 50 NON-TVL projects? I mean, I would guess a lot of people like Pulsar Finance who have been building for months with no TVL at all
SR
11:10
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
sorry, but it was already agreed upon
S
11:10
Seb
In reply to this message
Yes please add :
- longer vesting periods
- reach consensus around a method to stop vesting in case nothing gets delivered
p
11:10
pmp
Discord allows one vote per team!
T
11:10
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
what?
SR
11:11
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
While you were building your "fake TBA" behind closed doors, we actually gathered all the founders under the same roof and reached a consensus that a meta-governance method was needed, and everyone agreed that this was the right way to make initial decisions at least, and a new governance method can be decided later on.

One vote per team and validator.

We can create independent votes where only teams can vote, or only validators can vote,or both.
We can also have multiple options (not just A or B), and have multi-choice or single choice.

This has already been outlined and agreed, I'm not defining anything here, just relaying the message.
V
11:12
Vlad
In reply to this message
This is why we're postponing the final discussion for the split for after the list is created
M
11:12
Miguel | Founder at Pulsar Finance
In reply to this message
Agree, discord vote makes no sense tbh
A
11:12
AtoZ (Will not DM first)
In reply to this message
Again, why?
Y
11:13
Yash 🌕 | TFL
There are greater aspects to everything

1. Hours shed to have AMAs to invite TVL
2. Additional Resources hired to make that happen
3. Running multiple forums to address tvl issues
Etc , list goes on

All this comes at some cost for sure including manpower

I mean tiers should be important, I wish there is a unanimous agreement , else some projects will not give 100% and we don’t wanna end up shedding allocation because we have to do it and there is lesser interest to deliver
TD
11:13
Terra Dactyl
In reply to this message
Agree with this. Also, food for thought, the resources have already been earmarked from the community pool for projects already. Why can't each project put together applications and let the community agree to award or not award on a case by case basis? It doesn't seem efficient to try and shoe-horn all projects into a one size fits all model
T
11:13
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
Okay lol - have fun with all this guys. @MrRefractor @zmmac @future_of_france @Sebastian_Jer @ChaunceyStJohn @Karma181 maybe 1/2 more should be in a seperate room right now
SR
11:13
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
who are you again?
Your Twitter says you're building on Evmos? Why are you even here?
M
11:13
Miguel | Founder at Pulsar Finance
In reply to this message
There's no list, therefore why create a vote without all interested parties? Im not yet on discord chat for example, I would guess there are others like me
SR
11:14
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
all interested parties are there lol.
Just because you're not there yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist 🤷
M
11:14
Miguel | Founder at Pulsar Finance
In reply to this message
https://twitter.com/PulsarFinance?t=ytrRJ_RDejtoQtV7b-q0DA&s=09
T
11:14
Tundra V1
That room does *not* include @Chinoman10 @atozborg @defimiguel @pmp888 and im sure many other people because you guys should not be included in these conversations. The reason why is because you're not people who have been working as builders for more than the past few months
A
11:15
Andreas
In reply to this message
strong disagree. Nothing was chosen by everyone, nor is such a "choice" of an "objective" metric going to magically please everyone (on the contrary, it's too rigid). Only the voting scheme can aggregate multiple opinions properly... that's the last comment I'm making on this though for now ;)
a
11:15
anon intern
I think I’d be happier staying poor at this point 😅
T
11:15
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
fuck that. These people who literally are popping out the woodwork should not "get an equal voice!"
SR
11:15
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
Lol?! I've been building on Terra for over a year friend.
Ask TFL or even Flipside or Apollo.
Nexus only came to be in Q3/Q4. Please remember your roots.
A
11:16
Andreas
In reply to this message
wtf? :D
OG
11:16
One GAIA
time to trim membership again? or not. it's whack-a-mole https://twitter.com/FatManTerra/status/1531670549151227909
K
11:16
Karma
- rough distribution was agreed upon for TVL based / non TVL based split. (75/25).
YES there will be more non tvl projects but the TVL ones are the ones that drive value with proven track record. THINK LONG TERM. Noone will care about your NFT project or defi dashboard on a chain with no big DeFi heavy hitters. And I say this as a NFT project leader.

- After Flipside provides initial data for review, it can be discussed.

- list of non TVL based projects must be established ASAP @ChaunceyStJohn provided starting point, I will work on it more today.

@yash202022 @defimiguel @Terra_Dactyl your points have already been discussed at lenght over past days, we CANNOT go over this again. Your erratic messages distract from reaching solutions
A
11:17
AtoZ (Will not DM first)
In reply to this message
LOL. I'll not comment on that but it seems you don't know so well this ecosystem after all.
H
11:19
Hyperion
In reply to this message
Great comment @Karma181 - now let's move on so we can start building and getting TVL and activity on Terra 2
p
11:20
pmp
In reply to this message
That was not put for a vote with one per team, as was agreed here that it would be done.
The vote is not valid.
T
11:23
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
what are the next things to discuss?
K
11:25
Karma
@sjpark19 I know there was a form you shared in past days, any chance it can be shared with me/someone else elected so we have 1 centralised person try collate list of non TVL projects? This needs to be delegated
SR
11:27
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
Will go live shortly.
E
11:27
Eloi | Talis
Those ways of reaching "consensus" are absolutely ridiculous. Past mistakes are about to be made again.
T
11:30
Tundra V1
There will always be people & teams that bring more to the table in various ways and have/should have an outsized voice (and visa versa).

Same way you can't weigh in on important matters in your local government, not everyone can weigh in on some of these matters. This is obvious if you think about it (and *needs* to be this way or the high value people find somewhere else to apply effort), you're just clouded by the word "decentralized" decentralized does not mean everyone gets an equal vote

even in on-chain voting. Your vote does not mean the same as someone with more capital invested than you (more skin in the game). Different mechanics, same impact
A
11:32
AtoZ (Will not DM first)
In reply to this message
Mate, looking at how you are talking and how much you will gain from this, your voice should have no vote.

You cannot have (and you don't have) a fair opinion.
Y
11:32
Yash 🌕 | TFL
Remember these 50mn tokens are not $500mn, it could be billions if we make wiser decisions 🤷🏻‍♂️. Any project feels left out could be the next moonshot
E
11:33
Eloi | Talis
In reply to this message
Yeah I don't wanna get into philo rn, but we're not trying to reach an ideal of decentralization just for hearing "meh bro, life is life, just like meat space, things are as they are".

In order to fight that people created political parties. Which is coming opposite of the DAO's spirit imo.
p
11:34
pmp
In reply to this message
You are not part of true decentralised governance. That means not strong arming positions, or creating echo chambers, that leave little room for contrarian positions.
And the excuse of ohh this is whats wrong with dao's is also not fitting here.

We need a vote with 1 founder per team (discord was setup for that) to decide the fate of 45 Million USD (at ~9usd per Luna)
Ray Raspberry joined group by link from Group
K
11:34
Karma
There was no vote yet and NO NEED to get defensive. In order to create solutions, discussion has to be streamlined. This is what we are trying to do, in absence of centralised leadership of TFL. Popping into a chat once a day to share your story and disagree with e eryone else is not bringing us closer to a solution.

We have agreed on a framework that enables PROGRESS instead of a loop of bickering.
Waiting on flipside data to reevaluate. There is no solution to make everyone happy. We SHOULD all be unhappy, but hopeful for long term value creation.
CS
11:34
Chauncey St. John 🌔😇 | Angel Protocol
#KarmaForPresident
M
11:35
Mike | Astral | Will not DM you
In reply to this message
I vote bring back TFL for centralised leadership.

Now I've seen the other side and it's not pretty lol
T
11:36
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
Need leadership structure - not sure if its TFL, or TFL + an outside council, either way
A
11:37
AtoZ (Will not DM first)
In reply to this message
Yup, people greed for more money, not for the ecosystem.
G
11:37
Gabriel Shapiro | GC Delphi Labs
could I ask--how are these tokens physically controlled right now? because whatever rule system is developed, it will go nowhere unless the people who actually control the tokens buy into it
N?
11:38
Nick | GT 🌖
In reply to this message
Everyone just wants a bigger pie. It’s such a shame.
M
11:38
Miguel | Founder at Pulsar Finance
Is someone working on the NON-TVL projects list guys? Would love to understand how many of us there are
a
11:38
anon intern
In reply to this message
Have they been minted yet ? Do we know
p
11:39
pmp
In reply to this message
There needs to be a proper vote to decide if there will be a % between non TVL and TVL.
All the discussion here is because there is a refusal, and concerted effort to not make the vote or to move past it as it was agreed 75-25 for the 0.5%.
That was not agreed!
The 75%-25% that you keep alluding to @Karma181 was not voted with one founder per team!
In fact, a lot of users are not here from all projects. I dont see many NFT projects here. The way to come here also is arbitrary.
There are a lot of members from Delphi, GT and Angel here!

If we divide 45M across 200 projects, thats ~200k per project. Enough for a few moonshots to come through!

My suggestion for a vote is to split equally 100% of the 0.5% Emergency TTS amongs all Terra projects.
SR
11:40
Sergio 'Chinoman10' Rebelo
In reply to this message
I'm writing the voting message now... give me just a few more minutes and then we can take everyone in here to go vote in there.
GF
11:40
GJ Flannery
@Jared_TFL pinged you over there
T
11:41
Tundra V1
I think there is an extremely clear need for a smaller group with more focused discussion & people with more background (credibility) and more skin in the game.

@jackisnotinabox - vote probably
J
11:42
Jackisnotinabox
In reply to this message
What would we class as that/how would we identify the members for that smaller group?
K
11:42
Karma
In reply to this message
Have we still learnt nothing about cult of personality? 😂

Jokes aside if launch of Terra 2 had been decentralised we would still be sitting here chainless. All comes back to dilemma of decentralisation. I am sorry but anyone calling for equal split of emergency funds is DELUSIONAL. You want an NFT project launched in 2 weeks to get the same as Astroport or Prism?
This is insane.

I repeat. The goal of emergency allocation is to ensure value accrual for Luna as our new mother chain. That includes accepting personal sacrifices in order to retain Tvl heavy, attractive time builders.

I say this as a person not benefitting from that 75/25 split at all (edit: and even that split is not fixed yet, just a starting point people)
a
11:43
anon intern
In reply to this message
This is a bad idea imo
DE
11:44
Daniel Eliasson ☕️
In reply to this message
Make sense 👍
p
11:45
pmp
In reply to this message
Credibility?
We built the best DEX aggregator on Terra (try any trade and compare it with coinhall), and the first NFT aggregator on Terra. All onchain.
We have taken ZERO money from TFL, ZERO money from LFG, paid ZERO to any Terra influencer, and we had ZERO TFL engineers helping us.
In fact one of our team joined Terra Developers room for the first time a month ago!

There is no argument here that centralisation is needed. We didnt reach that point on these discussions. There is a concerted effort by some to try to negate all the Terra teams to have a say on the fate of 0.5% of the Total Supply of Luna 2.0
L
11:45
Luc | Orne.io
I feel so ashamed about what i see there, we are supposed to relaunch, to build, to help people in needs. We have committed via socials to building on Terra 2.0 out of faith and no financial runway or incentive. I really thought we could make it, that we could see the bigger picture and forge a strong alliance. Rebuild from ash a stronger chain and a better community.

I'm the founder of french community and i'm here since 2019 and i worked hard for free, to make people know Terra, to recognize the project, to share vision. I never had any help or support to launch Orne by the ecosystem and even if pylon or starterra didn't even took time to respond to my request, i always counted terra as my crypto family. That's why i'm here today, willing to restart from ash, even if i'm now ruined, even if my project almost lost everything and that i have trouble paying my team.

But now all i see is greed.

I saw personal attack. I saw people who doesn't bother walking on agonizing project to get a bigger share of the pie.

I saw the worst of us.

If this is the terra 2.0 you are planning to make, at this point i'm not even sure i want to be a part of it anymore.
K
11:49
Karma
What I see is people passionate to preserve and save something they love, they just have different ideas how to go about it.

You keep saying everyone should vote - but that is unfeasible. What do we define a "project team" as? A project of 30 builders and massive chain defining TVL cant be given equal vote as small NFT projects, or undaunted unverified team. This is not about personal values - its about feasibility and LONG TERM VIABILITY for this chains survival.

Edit: your snarky and self pitying comments do not help find a solution.
I see Discord as viable platform, I also see electing a comittee a viable solution. We have more in common that against each other, please
SJ
11:49
Sebastian J
I always wondered what 300 people fighting over $45 million dollars looked like...
DE
11:49
Daniel Eliasson ☕️
In reply to this message
100%
a
11:50
anon intern
In reply to this message
Squid games 2.0
T
11:51
Tundra V1
In reply to this message
exactly - again Karma for the win
Spitfire〽️ joined group by link from Group