- Terra’s Do Kwon has introduced three amendments to proposal 1623 to fork the chain.
- The amendments were introduced as the Terra community was still voting on the original proposal.
- Do Kwon states that the amendments were added to accommodate community feedback.
- The introduction of amendments during an ongoing vote has triggered some Terra community members to question the process.
Terra’s Do Kwon has introduced three amendments to proposal 1623 meant to fork the chain into the Terra Classic (LUNC) and Terra (LUNA) chains. According to Do Kwon, the amendments were necessary to accommodate community feedback and are as follows:
- This amendment will ensure that small Luna holders have similar initial liquidity profiles. It will also cover 99.81% of Luna wallets while only representing 6.45% of total Luna at the Pre-attack snapshot. For the pre-attack LUNA holders distribution, all holders with a snapshot balance of 10k Luna or less will have 30% of their allocation unlocked at the genesis of the new chain, and 70% will be vested over two years thereafter with a six-month cliff.
- The token allocation has been reduced from 20% to 15% of the total for the post-attack UST holders’ distribution. This will ensure that depeg-related allocation is on par with the original stakeholder allocation. The 5% adjusted will go to the community pool.
- The third amendment increases the initial float from 15% to 30%, thus increasing the initial token float.
Terra Proposal 1623 is a Living Document
Do Kwon went on to add that the Terra Ecosystem Revival Plan 2 document will continue to evolve. He said:
This will be a living document to coordinate the new network launch with the community. Details are subject to change.
This document has been edited in conjunction with input from the Terra Builders Alliance, and has endorsement of both the TBA and TFL.
Amendments to Terra Proposal 1623 Mid-Vote Triggered Some Community Members to Question the Process
To note is that Mr. Kwon’s amendments were made as voting was ongoing. However, he did include a statement that opened the doors to anyone who had voted and was not happy with the amendments to return and vote ‘no’ for the changes.
But still, the changes mid-vote elicited mixed emotions from the Terra Community. One such community member is @FatManTerra, who was unhappy with the process. He said:
What the hell? How can you make significant amendments to a proposal *mid-vote* when most people have already voted (for the original document)?
A new proposal in Terra Station should be made with a fresh vote. This is not cool. (No comment on the changes – just the execution.)
He also expressed concern that such amendments opened the doors to changes one or two hours before the end of the vote. He explained:
…changing significant details of a proposal that’s already a few days deep into voting isn’t cool.
Who’s to stop the proposal from being ‘amended’ an hour or two before closure? Any significant changes should be posted up as a brand new proposal.
At the time of writing, there are still five days of voting left, with 50% (185.264 million) of the potential votes cast. Of this amount, 79.31% are for the vote to fork the Terra chain.