Rabbit

Terra Classic

Moon

Terra

Moon Rabbit

In the world of Terra Classic, things have been a bit tricky lately. The community, like a group of friends, is asking everyone to take it slow and be patient. Terra (LUNA) had a tough time, and now&nbsp;<a href="https://cryptoticker.io/en/terra-classic-burning-lunc-price/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Terra Luna Classic</a>&nbsp;(LUNC) is putting in the effort to bounce back.
Imagine it as a team of neighbors helping each other after a storm – not flashy, just people lending a hand. The Terra 2.0 network and Terra Classic are like those neighbors, working quietly to build things up again.
For the folks investing in this journey, here are the five things to know about what exactly happening with Terra Luna Classic.
<h2 id="h-1-terra-classic-upgrade-vote">1. Terra Classic Upgrade Vote</h2>
Just a few days back, the developers at Joint L1 Task Force (L1TF), the brains behind Terra Luna Classic, had their core security upgrade package proposal up for voting in the Terra Luna Classic community. It’s a step that came at the right time, given the various challenges faced by LUNC in its revival journey and the hopes for USTC repeg, despite a significant effort from crypto exchange Binance last year.&nbsp;
Proposal 12008, named “L1TF Terra Classic core security upgrade package,” was up for voting on the Station wallet. The goal of this proposal was – to enhance the security and stability of the chain by upgrading its core components. Additionally, i a step toward meeting the infrastructure needs for TFL support. It’s like giving the system a security boost and strengthening the foundations for a smoother journey ahead.
<h2 id="h-2-terra-luna-classic-passed-pay-per-job-proposal">2. Terra Luna Classic Passed Pay Per Job Proposal</h2>
&nbsp;Proposal 11889, titled “Pay-per-job and governance-ruled Job List, successfully passed”. The community wasn’t entirely on board with the monthly model of roadmap and payment planning, so they’ve decided to shake things up and switch to a pay-per-job model.
The support for the proposal was overwhelming, with a whopping 91.99% of “Yes” votes, and others mostly opting to “Abstain.” It was a sign that this change will optimize the compensation structure, bring in flexibility and transparency, ramp up community engagement, and tackle risk mitigation.
Out of the 56 validators in the game, 49 gave a nod to the proposal, and 7 decided to play it safe with an “Abstain.” Big names in the validation game, including Allnodes, Orion, Interstellar Lounge, Stakely, and StakeBin, gave their approval.
With L1TF transitioning into a “maintenance mode” for Q4, there’s a bunch of tasks waiting in the wings for attention on Terra Classic. The switch to a pay-per-job approach is expected to handle these tasks more efficiently. Moving forward, new job listings can be proposed through governance text proposals, complete with all the details – job title, a thorough description, budget, and estimated duration. It’s a fresh approach to get things done in Terra Classic!
<h2 id="h-3-the-terra-luna-classic-security-upgrade-proposal-was-rejected">3. The Terra Luna Classic security upgrade proposal was rejected</h2>
In an update from the Terra Luna Classic community, it appears that the proposal for the core security upgrade package by L1TF has hit a roadblock. The community has decided to&nbsp;<a href="https://cryptoticker.io/en/lunc-price-prediction-security-upgrade/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">reject the proposal</a>, and one of the reasons cited for the rejection was the influence of proposal 11889. This earlier proposal introduced a pay-per-job approach for developments, and validators, including notable ones like Allnodes, voted “No” on the core security upgrade package, pointing to the preference for the pay-per-job model. It’s a clear indication of the community’s stance on development approaches within the Terra Luna Classic ecosystem.&nbsp;
In a turn of events, the Terra Luna Classic community has rejected Joint L1 Task Force’s (L1TF) core security upgrade package proposal 12008, despite its importance for boosting the chain’s security and stability. The proposal was also deemed crucial for meeting the requirement for TFL infrastructure support.
Unfortunately, the proposal didn’t garner enough support, receiving less than 30% of votes in favor. Key validators, including Allnodes, Interstellar Lounge, Interstake One, Moon Rabbit Validator, and&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/terra-luna/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">LUNC&nbsp;</a>DAO, voted against it.
One validator emphasized the broader consequences, stating, “Blocking pull requests not only impede the immediate progress of the chain but also have far-reaching consequences, diminishing the collaborative spirit and trust within the community. This can ultimately hinder the long-term success and sustainability of&nbsp;<a href="https://cryptoticker.io/en/evm-lunc-price-moon/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Terra Classic</a>.”
In response to the previous pay-per-job proposal, validator LuncLive introduced Proposal 12013 to repeal it. This proposal argues that the pay-per-job approach led to uncertainty and confusion within the community, builders, and validators. It seems like Terra Luna Classic is navigating a complex landscape as it seeks to find the most effective development and governance models.&nbsp;

What’s Happening With Terra Luna Classic? Here are Three Things

Table of Contents

CryptoTicker ENG

Other articles published on Apr 23, 2024

CZOL Unveils Rebranding and Launches Exclusive Airdrop to Honor Crypto Community

Ripple Responds To SEC Remedies With A $10 Million Power Move

Moon Keynote Teaser Drives Investors Towards BlockDAG with 20,000x ROI, Silences ETH ETF Speculat...

Spotify Reports 20% Y/Y Revenue Growth in Q1 2024

Stay Ahead in Crypto Trading: Harnessing the Power of Discipline

Bitcoin ETF News LIVE Update: Will the BTC price continue to drop?

Join our free newsletter for daily crypto updates!