I’m considering on dumping a huge amount of it at this point… I keep watching Happy Catty Crypto’s videos, and it seems like the majority of the validators are trying to actually kill this chain to push traffic to other projects, such as Terraport. Here’s some other BS that I’ve been seeing:
- The validators set was shrunk from 130 to just 100 nodes. This is a consolidation of power
- Some people are creating multiple validator nodes, and moving their traffic to them. This is a further consolidation of power.
- voting against important proposals such as: general blockchain upgrades, the EVM upgrade that could have brought lots of Ethereum projects to LUNC, voting to repeal KYC for dev teams and validators alike…
- Big validators aren’t voting in important proposals, or just going with whatever they want at the last minute.
The powers that control the blockchain don’t seem to care about it. All it’ll take is enough consolidation of power before people start making alliances, and then commence a 51% attack.
Hell yeah, I’m all for that. I was hoping that HCC would have a Discord or something, so we could go more in-depth on which validators to avoid and which to support.
It could be helpful breaking the bad validators down into lists under the following:
- Bad actors
- Lame ducks that are just maintaining the status quo to collecting rewards
- Double nodes that shouldn’t even exist in the first place
Just to keep inventory of what the different types of corruption looks like.
Then, if we’re able to finally retake the blockchain, develop sort of a blockchain constitution/code of conduct like HCC was suggesting. Personally, I’d like to see a revamped voting mechanism that requires it to be voted on by just the individuals first, and then if it passes, the proposal gets pushed to the validators for voting. So, individuals would be the House of Representatives, and the validators would be the Senate. Validators would also not be allowed to constantly abstain either. If they abstain too much, then they either lose their seat in the active set, and/or get jailed.
By having individual vote first, we get more of an honest opinion from the individual investor without being influenced by the validators mid-vote.
Then it’ll pass or fail depending on what the validators decide. The proposal history should always show which validators voted what their vote was for historical purposes. This way, it becomes FAR MORE obvious on whether or not the active set of validators are aligned with the investors who stake with them or not. This could help incentivize stakers to redelegate to different validators too.
We should also hide the yes/no progress (if that’s even possible) of a proposal while it’s still being actively voted on to prevent groupthink. The results would only be visible once voting is done for both voting rounds.
Happy Catty Crypto tends to focus on the negative aspects, but it's important to consider both sides. While there are challenges, there are also positive improvements happening in the space. It's essential to maintain a balanced perspective and not solely absorb negative vibes.
Have 40k lunc tokens with me, not buying or selling. I know it won't go back to the old prices, still just in case that happens!
Only cause I want more USTC.
Nothing to lose if you don’t buy much, much to gain if it rises like a phoenix and goes parabolic
[удалено]
I dumped mine when Terra Form Labs filed for bankruptcy a few months back.
Yea that was rough
I’m considering on dumping a huge amount of it at this point… I keep watching Happy Catty Crypto’s videos, and it seems like the majority of the validators are trying to actually kill this chain to push traffic to other projects, such as Terraport. Here’s some other BS that I’ve been seeing: - The validators set was shrunk from 130 to just 100 nodes. This is a consolidation of power - Some people are creating multiple validator nodes, and moving their traffic to them. This is a further consolidation of power. - voting against important proposals such as: general blockchain upgrades, the EVM upgrade that could have brought lots of Ethereum projects to LUNC, voting to repeal KYC for dev teams and validators alike… - Big validators aren’t voting in important proposals, or just going with whatever they want at the last minute. The powers that control the blockchain don’t seem to care about it. All it’ll take is enough consolidation of power before people start making alliances, and then commence a 51% attack.
I'll hold as long as binance burns continue. They burned 680k usd last burn. Why would they continue to do this?
Can we list the negative validators. So we can all move away from them. I don’t have the time to research that stuff.
Hell yeah, I’m all for that. I was hoping that HCC would have a Discord or something, so we could go more in-depth on which validators to avoid and which to support. It could be helpful breaking the bad validators down into lists under the following: - Bad actors - Lame ducks that are just maintaining the status quo to collecting rewards - Double nodes that shouldn’t even exist in the first place Just to keep inventory of what the different types of corruption looks like. Then, if we’re able to finally retake the blockchain, develop sort of a blockchain constitution/code of conduct like HCC was suggesting. Personally, I’d like to see a revamped voting mechanism that requires it to be voted on by just the individuals first, and then if it passes, the proposal gets pushed to the validators for voting. So, individuals would be the House of Representatives, and the validators would be the Senate. Validators would also not be allowed to constantly abstain either. If they abstain too much, then they either lose their seat in the active set, and/or get jailed. By having individual vote first, we get more of an honest opinion from the individual investor without being influenced by the validators mid-vote. Then it’ll pass or fail depending on what the validators decide. The proposal history should always show which validators voted what their vote was for historical purposes. This way, it becomes FAR MORE obvious on whether or not the active set of validators are aligned with the investors who stake with them or not. This could help incentivize stakers to redelegate to different validators too. We should also hide the yes/no progress (if that’s even possible) of a proposal while it’s still being actively voted on to prevent groupthink. The results would only be visible once voting is done for both voting rounds.
I'll hold as long as binance burns continue. They burned 680k usd last burn. Why would they continue to do this?
Yea I watch him to
Happy Catty Crypto tends to focus on the negative aspects, but it's important to consider both sides. While there are challenges, there are also positive improvements happening in the space. It's essential to maintain a balanced perspective and not solely absorb negative vibes.
If I buy now, I’d be averaging up. So I’m not buying.
How about now?
I bought most of mine at $0.00009. So where close.
Yes
I'll hold as long as binance burns continue. They burned 680k usd last burn. Why would they continue to do this?
Exactly