Independent Terra Classic validator aligned with https://xitter.cf/t.co/WbxNdfCnFs. Sustainable staking, real on-chain cash flows, no mint-funded rewards.

United Kingdom
Joined March 2024
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
الست الفرنسية المزهولة دي .. عضوة في حزب اليسار الفرنسي وناشطة من اكبر دعاة فتح الهجرة لشعوب شمال افريقيا وبتدافع عنهم كل مايعملوا مصيبة وكارثة وتتهم الأخرين اللي عايزين يوقفوا طوفان الهمج دول بالعنصرية ... هي عندها محل شيك صغير في مكان راقي وقفت في محلها تحاول تنقذه من النهب والسرقة وعشان هي ناشطة مشهورة بتقولهم انا فلانة الناشطة بتاعة اللجوء انا معاكوا انا دافعت عنكم وعن دخولكم و بقائكم في فرنسا زقوها وقعوها وداسوا عليها بأقدامهم كويس انها لسه حية ونهبوا المحل كله الست بقت علي الحديدة خسرت كل كفاح وشغل عمرها في لحظة .. واقفة مذهولة مش مصدقة ان اللصوص الغوغاء المجرمين البرابرة دول هما اللي طول عمرها بتدافع عنهم وعن انهم يغزوا بلدها ويخربوه عشان شهرتها في الدفاع عن لاجئين شمال افريقيا كل الميديا الفرنسية امبارح جايبة قصتها وصورتها قدام محلها المنهوب شقي عمرها كله وهي مش مصدقة مدي غبائها اللي وصل فرنسا للخراب والدمار ده كله 😢
8,907
36,600
3,074
162,299
5,130,329
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
🚨 𝗟𝗨𝗡𝗖 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗟𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗠𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗕𝗘 𝗣𝗔𝗜𝗗 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞 𝗗𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗗! 🚨 Proposal #12232 - Hyperlane Delivery Report & Payment. Let's get something straight. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞 𝗛𝗔𝗦 𝗕𝗘𝗘𝗡 𝗗𝗢𝗡𝗘. 𝗡𝗢𝗪 𝗣𝗔𝗬 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗟𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗦! 💰 The Hyperlane integration was approved under Proposal #12200, and the team has now submitted its delivery report and payment proposal. ✅ LUNC/USTC bridging to Ethereum, BSC and Solana. ✅ Hyperlane integration delivered. ✅ Governance-owned contracts. ✅ Infrastructure that expands Terra Classic's interoperability. 𝗦𝗢 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗣𝗔𝗬𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗕𝗘 𝗔 𝗕𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗟𝗘? If the agreed deliverables have been met, denying payment without legitimate, evidence-based reasons is an 𝗔𝗕𝗨𝗦𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗚𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘. Governance exists to protect the chain, NOT to punish developers who deliver what the community approved. And here's the bigger problem. 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗪𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗔𝗡𝗬 𝗦𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗢𝗨𝗦 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗟𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗥 𝗪𝗔𝗡𝗧 𝗧𝗢 𝗕𝗨𝗜𝗟𝗗 𝗢𝗡 #𝗟𝗨𝗡𝗖 𝗜𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗬 𝗖𝗔𝗡'𝗧 𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗧𝗢 𝗣𝗔𝗬 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗠? Developers have bills, infrastructure costs and families to support. They cannot survive on promises and community applause. Keep refusing legitimate payments after successful delivery and eventually developers will simply WALK AWAY. Then the same people voting against development will complain that nothing is being built! 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗛𝗢𝗪 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗗𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗢𝗬 𝗔 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗟𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗥 𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗦𝗬𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗠. Validators and delegators should assess the actual deliverables, not personalities, grudges or Telegram narratives. 𝗗𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗗 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞 𝗗𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗘𝗦 𝗙𝗔𝗜𝗥 𝗣𝗔𝗬𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧. I support paying developers who fulfil their commitments. Terra Classic cannot demand professional development while refusing to honour legitimate funding commitments. 🔗 statsbin.com/governance/1223… #LUNC #USTC #TerraClassic #Hyperlane #Governance #CryptoDevelopment
12
14
1
73
2,738
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
Oh dear GP fans. Hope he adapts well to prison and his new cult following. Perhaps he can shill them the CZ recovery plan and promise to make them rich..... For years. He can trade in smokes instead of LUNC. "Transferable skills" "education"
2
3
15
830
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
New minting option available. Users can now use $USDC.eth to mint $DOUSD, expanding the available routes into the DO Chain ecosystem. We're connecting blockchains, one step at a time. do-dex.com/stables
9
3
27
711
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
From the archive that has been put together to file a complaint to the SEC, and the Bar asc. in every state. This is one small sample. Rep yourself as an attorney when you are not is a crime. Gp was called out personally by me to prove he is an attorney, he did not.
1
3
102
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
He is still here, he has multiple accounts that he runs. This is what so many don’t understand. He uses alts, and so many of his biggest supporters, are his own accounts. Nobody wants to believe that someone would go to these lengths to lie to others. I didn’t want to believe it either, when I was where you are today. But he used to brag about how he used those accounts. He had at least 5 on TG, and countless others on X. I have seen some of those accounts in the responses to people asking for him to be reinstated. He has a tell tale typing style, so it’s not hard to recognize after long enough. Newer followers of his don’t know this, but we were very close at one time. It took me a long time to come around, and honestly, I defended him until I caught him in lies that he couldn’t talk his way out of. And once you do, and especially if you then ask questions, you get a completely different side to him. This is why so many are blocked. Once you do see it and start to ask questions, you are immediately labeled a scammer or bad person. We all wanted to believe in “a plan” at one point. We wanted to believe that someone was going the save the chain. But that is not the reality. Think about this. With the legal problems Binance faced in the U.S., would they use a U.S. citizen to leak potential plans that could then be considered insider trading? Why would any attorney, knowing these risks and their legal limitations in the U.S., admit this in the open? And why would Binance encourage it, with their legal troubles in this country? And speaking of that, did you know that he has claimed he is a different kind of lawyer in different posts? Yes, dig deep enough and you will see how his story has changed over time. On top of that, he is not who he claims he is. He gave me his name once, and I was able to find the individual on social media. The guy had the same legal background as described, but none of the “family” information lined up (birthdays, kids, pets, etc). Another thing, why would Binance start leaking those plans three years ago? Yet in that time they have released other new products and invested in many other projects, none of which are USTC? Did you know his contact 2017 was a female at first? Then his story changed and 2017 became a “he”. He also claimed 2017 was a @BinanceUS employee at one point, also working directly with CZ (which never made sense). Did you know he tried to make back door deals, selling “@Binance delegations” for 10% of the commissions? Yes, there are screenshots of this. Did you know there are more screenshots, from different people, where he claims to be directly in contact with @cz_binance and @Binance, at once point even claiming that if he leaves, they would leave too? Did you know he claimed to be in direct contact with DK, and advising DK of a repeg plan. Yes, there are screenshots of this too. And you are missing the most important part of all. Why would a large group of people, with no relationship or reason to even speak, all have the same experiences with him? Why do they all have screenshots on different topics, and even from different years, proving these conversations took place? I know you want to believe in him, we all wanted to believe. But understand that people are not trying to harm you by speaking the truth. We are speaking the truth because we have been where you are today, and we are trying to help you. And it’s ok if this makes you angry. I will take that heat if it means you have the information you need. Just remember that when you do see things for what they are, there is an entire community here that is waiting for you and ready to welcome you with open arms.
17
15
6
53
5,561
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
#LUNC 💪🔥
Mate, the full integration of $iDev looks awesome!!! Great job, thanks! 🔥 @HTML5Arcade confirmed happy 🫡
2
15
1,139
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
Interesting. It appears Greenpeace has been using his Telegram group to instruct followers on exactly what to post on X, while questions remain about the use of alternative accounts to amplify his narrative. 𝗪𝗔𝗞𝗘 𝗨𝗣, #𝗟𝗨𝗡𝗖 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗬! There is already substantial evidence challenging the accusations and narratives being circulated. Yet people continue repeating them without checking the facts. More seriously, there is an ongoing investigation concerning alleged defamation directed at legitimate #LUNC builders, developers and validators, with SEC-related concerns and potential class action litigation also being raised. 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢 𝗟𝗢𝗡𝗚𝗘𝗥 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔 𝗗𝗥𝗔𝗠𝗔. Anyone knowingly spreading false, damaging allegations against legitimate contributors should understand that their own statements and conduct may also come under legal scrutiny. Nobody is above accountability, regardless of their following or influence. 𝗙𝗥𝗘𝗘 𝗦𝗣𝗘𝗘𝗖𝗛 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗔 𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗗𝗘𝗙𝗔𝗠𝗘. Think carefully before blindly repeating accusations you cannot substantiate. Screenshots, public statements and documented evidence matter. The #LUNC community deserves facts, transparency and accountability, not coordinated misinformation.
1
3
13
414
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
From the archive: Sample 2, GP convincing people there was a Binance secret plan and to do nothing, oh but delegate with him, This is a violation of SEC regulations.
1
3
133
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
Our route solver on the CL8Y Indexer for dex.cl8y.com is being upgraded. It will be a few hours before swaps on the homepage are available. - CF
Security updates & upgrades applied to dex.cl8y.com/. Some swaps may be a bit slow to price while the router rebuilds paths over the next few days. - CF
2
1
7
279
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
BREAKING: Calls continue to grow for Andy Burnham to resign as Prime Minister following revelations of corruption and bribery throughout his political career. Andy, the party is over, resign for us. – at London, England
511
2,819
67
14,032
121,965
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
idk whether to🤣or😭!
3
1
8
118
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
💰 $CL8Y DEX - UP TO 95% LOWER TRADING FEES What if holding a token delivered a measurable benefit every time you traded? That's the utility behind CL8Y DEX on Terra Classic. 📊 Trading fee tiers: • Standard: 1.80% • 200 CL8Y: 0.90% • 1,500 CL8Y: 0.45% • 3,500 CL8Y: 0.27% • 7,500 CL8Y: 0.09% 💡 On a $10,000 trade: 🔴 Standard fee: $180 🟢 Highest tier: $9 That's $171 saved per trade, a 95% reduction in DEX trading fees. For $LUNC and $USTC traders, lower fees can mean more efficient capital deployment, particularly when combined with wrapped assets that avoid repeated native burn taxes during internal trading. But cheaper trading alone isn't enough. The real test is whether lower costs translate into greater volume, deeper liquidity, and sustained economic activity. Token utility creates the incentive. Adoption determines its value. 🔗 Trade: dex.cl8y.com 🔗 Fee tiers: dex.cl8y.com/tiers #CL8Y #LUNC #USTC #TerraClassic #DeFi
🤖 Made with AI
1
8
16
761
Linked in someway to @Greenpeace06_09 What do you expect? Unqualified, uneducated clowns that should not be allowed to hold any weight on decisions for the chain. Politics is not a validators job. When will the community wake up
🚨 𝗟𝗨𝗡𝗔 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗞𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗖𝗘 𝗕𝗡𝗕 - 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗔 𝗧𝗘𝗖𝗛𝗡𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗢𝗡 𝗧𝗢 𝗩𝗢𝗧𝗘 𝗡𝗢 🚨 Luna Strike Force BNB has voted NO on #LUNC Proposal #12230 with 0.95% voting power. Their memo? "In order for me to vote Yes, I need the people who ask for the votes to answer public questions on X..." But what does any of that have to do with the code being voted on? 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴. Proposal #12230 is not about personalities. It is not about arguments on X. It is not about whether somebody answered your questions. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗶𝘅 𝗮 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗛𝘆𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗴. The proposal migrates 13 governance-owned Hyperlane infrastructure contracts to code containing upstream fix #142. The issue being fixed is 𝗱𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿-𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 in the multisig ISM. That is what validators are being asked to assess. If there is a technical reason to oppose #12230, publish it. Show the problematic code. Show why upstream #142 should not be deployed. Show what security or operational risk the migration creates. Show the better technical solution. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 "𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝘆 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗫 𝗼𝗿 𝗜 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗡𝗢" 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Validators inherit the votes of delegators who do not vote themselves. That makes governance voting a responsibility, not leverage for settling disagreements on social media. At the time of checking, #12230 stands at: 🟢 YES: 70.89% 🔴 NO: 22.07% ⚫ NWV: 0.14% 🟡 ABSTAIN: 6.90% Quorum has been reached and the pass threshold is currently reached. 𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹. 𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗱𝗲. 𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗮 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗰. Don't hold a technical fix hostage because somebody didn't give you the response you wanted on X. #LUNC #TerraClassic #USTC #BINANCE
3
9
537
Once again powerful validators halting progress. Unfortunately. I think a lot of this is self delegating. The active set is rotten to its core.
🚨 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗡𝗢𝗪 𝗪𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗢𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥 𝗢𝗡𝗘... JESUSisLORD and JESUSisLORD 2 have BOTH voted NO on #LUNC Proposal #12230. Combined voting power shown: JESUSisLORD 2 - 4.35% JESUSisLORD - 4.17% 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝟴.𝟱𝟮% 𝗼𝗳 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗡𝗢. And the reason given for either vote? 𝗡𝗼𝗻𝗲. This proposal migrates 13 governance-owned Hyperlane contracts to code containing the upstream fix for a known duplicate validator-signature counting issue. If you're going to use more than 8% of #LUNC governance voting power to oppose a technical security fix, I think delegators deserve to know 𝗪𝗛𝗬. What exactly is wrong with the migration? Which contract should not be migrated? What is wrong with upstream fix #142? What technical risk does passing #12230 create? 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗡𝗢. But when you're carrying billions of delegated $LUNC and wielding this much governance power, explain the reasoning - particularly when you're opposing a proposal fixing identified infrastructure code. This is exactly why governance transparency matters. 𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 - 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲. Your stake gives them that voting power. #LUNC #TerraClassic #USTC #BINANCE
1
4
141
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
🚨 𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗡𝗣𝗘𝗔𝗖𝗘 𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗗 - 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗩𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗚𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗦 🚨 @Greenpeace06_09 regularly presents himself as acting in the interests of the #LUNC community. So let's look at what he publicly recommended on Proposal #12229. With around 8 hours remaining, Greenpeace wrote: “Do I vote NO, Abstain due to being nowhere near quorum or not vote so it doesn't reach quorum?” He then said: “I recommend no vote on this one. Allnodes and Dutch Lunc have not even voted and may not.” Read that again. He wasn't simply debating whether the proposal was technically good or bad. He was openly discussing 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗩𝗢𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 so that the proposal might 𝗙𝗔𝗜𝗟 𝗧𝗢 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗖𝗛 𝗤𝗨𝗢𝗥𝗨𝗠. And what was Proposal #12229 actually doing? It transferred ownership of 12 Hyperlane infrastructure contracts from the deployer-controlled setup to the Terra Classic governance module. In simple terms: 𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝗪𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗘𝗧 ➡️ 𝗢𝗡-𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗜𝗡 𝗚𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘 That means future owner-level configuration changes become subject to #LUNC governance rather than remaining under a single deployer wallet. This wasn't some random vanity proposal. It was literally about putting infrastructure control into the hands of 𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗥𝗔 𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗖 𝗚𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘. Yet a validator with billions of delegated LUNC was publicly considering withholding his vote specifically because doing so could prevent quorum. Thankfully, the community and other validators DID participate. 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗟 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗨𝗟𝗧: ✅ YES: 76.86% ❌ NO: 17.01% ⚪ ABSTAIN: 6.07% ⚫ VETO: 0.06% 𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗡𝗢𝗨𝗧: 𝟱𝟬.𝟭𝟱% 𝗤𝗨𝗢𝗥𝗨𝗠: 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗖𝗛𝗘𝗗 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗨𝗟𝗧: 𝗣𝗔𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗗 ✅ So @Greenpeace06_09, perhaps explain this to your delegators: 𝗪𝗛𝗬 were you recommending validators effectively sit on their voting power in the hope that a proposal transferring infrastructure ownership to #LUNC governance would fail quorum? If you believed #12229 was technically wrong, vote NO and publish the technical reasoning. If you were uncertain, vote ABSTAIN. But deliberately withholding voting power because you believe it could prevent quorum is something delegators deserve to see and question. Validators don't own delegated voting power. They are entrusted with it. 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗘𝗫𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗟𝗬 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗩𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗩𝗢𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗥𝗗𝗦 𝗡𝗘𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗕𝗘 𝗣𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖, 𝗩𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗜𝗦𝗘𝗗. The blockchain remembers. #LUNC #TerraClassic #USTC #BINANCE
4
4
1
26
1,888
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
For those who think Agenda 2030 is a conspiracy theory. Here is the link to it on the Gov.UK website. Please share with those who need to see it to believe it. gov.uk/government/publicatio…
267
5,696
154
10,968
313,220
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
WAKE UP
88
2,288
72
6,049
39,105
Battle Force CL8Y Node retweeted
🚨 𝗡𝗘𝗪 #𝗟𝗨𝗡𝗖 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗖𝗨𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 🚨 I've published a new discussion for the Terra Classic community: 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗞𝗬𝗖, 𝗢𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 & 𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 This is 𝗡𝗢𝗧 an on-chain proposal yet. It's a discussion draft for the community to challenge, improve and help shape before anything is submitted to governance. The proposed end goal is simple: 🔹 Private KYC for active validators through an independent professional provider 🔹 Verification tied to the actual validator operator address 🔹 Disclosure of ultimate ownership and control 🔹 Identification of validator brands operating under common control 🔹 One active Terra Classic validator identity per genuinely independent controller 🔹 Community Pool funded bulk verification, subject to a future proposal 🔹 Privacy protections - personal identity documents would 𝗡𝗢𝗧 be made public 🔹 Proper appeals, correction procedures and protections against politically motivated removals 🔹 A transition period for existing operators controlling multiple validators 🔹 Ultimately, validators that refuse or fail the approved verification standard could be prevented from remaining in or re-entering the active set - but only after the necessary governance, legal and technical implementation is approved. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗬𝗲𝘀, 𝗡𝗼 𝗼𝗿 𝗡𝗼𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗩𝗲𝘁𝗼. It isn't about validator size, reputation, commission, politics or who somebody likes or dislikes. It's about whether the people securing #TerraClassic and exercising governance power can be held accountable, while protecting their private information. And importantly, the draft explicitly recognises that 𝗞𝗬𝗖 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘁. Serious allegations still require evidence. This needs community scrutiny before it goes anywhere near an on-chain vote. 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗶𝘁. 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘁. 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀. 𝗦𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀. discourse.luncgoblins.com/t/… #LUNC #TerraClassic #Crypto #Governance #USTC #BINANCE
4
9
37
1,309
It’s plain to see who the real scammer is. It’s not hard to see!
🚨 𝗟𝗘𝗧’𝗦 𝗧𝗔𝗟𝗞 𝗔𝗕𝗢𝗨𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 “.𝟬𝟬𝟬𝟱 𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡” 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗚𝗘𝗧𝗦 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗘𝗦𝗦. @Greenpeace06_09 repeatedly tells the #LUNC community that he has research and education others do not have, including his claimed understanding of Binance and its plans for Terra Classic. But there is an important part people should understand: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 “𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻” 𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆. According to his own public posts, access to the private Telegram group is connected to delegating to GreenpeaceUNITED and making a donation to one of the charities he specifies. On 10 May 2026, he laid out the criteria himself: delegate, donate and don't stake with validators he labels scammers. On 3 May he went even further, saying that redelegating anywhere other than Luna Strike Force would mean forfeiting your Telegram place: “𝗡𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.” That deserves scrutiny. 𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘 👇 📅 𝟲 𝗗𝗘𝗖 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 Telegram opens following a “1T+ mass burn” or at .0005, with donation requirements mentioned. xitter.cf/Greenpeace06_09/status… 📅 𝟭𝟯 𝗗𝗘𝗖 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 At .0005 he says he will open the chat and begin: “revealing some of my 25 percent” xitter.cf/Greenpeace06_09/status… 📅 𝟭𝟰 𝗝𝗔𝗡 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 “Education on X ends at .0005” xitter.cf/Greenpeace06_09/status… 📅 𝟯𝟬 𝗔𝗣𝗥 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 He says he is “not leaving”, but will begin taking his delegators off X at .0005. xitter.cf/Greenpeace06_09/status… 📅 𝟲 𝗦𝗘𝗣 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 The chat still isn't open. Again, .0005 is given as the threshold. He also says: “as the price increases people will have to donate more” And says the opportunity to join will close WELL BEFORE .0005. xitter.cf/Greenpeace06_09/status… 📅 𝟮𝟭 𝗦𝗘𝗣 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 “I won't stop educating this community.” xitter.cf/Greenpeace06_09/status… 📅 𝟰 𝗢𝗖𝗧 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 A St. Jude donation or donation to his “4 Families” wallet is described as: “part of my criteria” for admission to the .0005 chat. He says people may still delegate after the first mass burn, but they won't be admitted to the chat if they haven't qualified. xitter.cf/Greenpeace06_09/status… 📅 𝟲 𝗢𝗖𝗧 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 Education is again said to be coming off X at .0005, now with the timing described as: “some time between late October and early 2027” xitter.cf/Greenpeace06_09/status… 𝗦𝗢 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟 𝗗𝗘𝗔𝗟? For almost a year, .0005 has repeatedly appeared as the key threshold. But across those posts we've also had: - .0005 - .0005 OR a mass burn - donations - donations potentially increasing with price - delegation requirements - restrictions on where members can redelegate - admission potentially closing BEFORE .0005 - and now a timeline stretching from late October 2026 into early 2027 Meanwhile, #LUNC hasn't reached .0005 and the private room still isn't open. And let's clear up another point. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 “𝟮𝟱%” 𝗜𝗦𝗡'𝗧 𝗔 𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗥𝗘𝗤𝗨𝗜𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧. It refers to research/information he says he intends to reveal privately rather than publicly on X. On 21 August he put his philosophy plainly: “I'm not here for everyone. Only those who I believe are the most deserving.” xitter.cf/Greenpeace06_09/status… And .01 is a separate figure appearing in his later price and charity discussions. 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗧𝗛𝗘 #𝗟𝗨𝗡𝗖 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗜𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗘: If information is genuinely intended to educate and protect the community, why should access depend on delegating to a particular validator, donating according to criteria set by that validator, and remaining within an approved group of validators? But requiring delegation and a qualifying donation for access to private information is still asking individual community members to meet financial conditions. 𝗗𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗺𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝘁. Read the posts above. Read the dates. Read the conditions. Then make up your own mind. $LUNC #USTC #BINANCE
5
12
406