Designate "Agora" as the Official Forum for Terra Classic

Proposals
1

AGORAPNG2
AGORAPNG2900×300 150 KB

Proposal Summary

This proposal seeks to establish Agora (the Discourse platform operated by Lunc Goblins) as the official governance and discussion forum for the Terra Classic ecosystem. By transitioning from the current platform, Commonwealth, this move will address ongoing accessibility issues, foster greater decentralization and enhance community engagement in line with Terra Classic’s core principles of inclusive and resilient governance.

Main Objectives

  1. Overcome Accessibility Barriers: Eliminate restrictions and challenges associated with Commonwealth, ensuring all global community members can participate without hindrance.
  2. Adopt a Proven, Decentralized Alternative: Officially recognize Agora, a highly active and censorship-resistant platform, as the primary hub for discussions, proposals, and ecosystem updates.

Rationale
Commonwealth has suffered from over a year of significant accessibility issues, including regional restrictions and technical barriers, which have limited diverse community participation, leading to reduced engagement and fragmented discussions. In comparison, Agora is a highly successful, community-driven forum known for uncensored, productive dialogues, high activity, and collaboration. Officially designating Agora will further decentralize communication by eliminating user barriers, align with the Terra Classic ethos, and create a more reliable space for governance and decision-making, thereby strengthening the ecosystem’s vibrancy.

Action Plan

  1. Official Designation: Propose that Agora be recognized as the official forum for Terra Classic governance, with all official announcements, proposal discussions, and community interactions migrating to this platform.
  2. Community Onboarding: Publish comprehensive transition documentation and step-by-step guides across existing communication channels to effectively support users in migrating to Agora.
  3. Transition Support: A volunteer working group comprising experienced moderators from Agora and other community platforms will manage the migration, ensuring seamless integration and operational continuity. The initial team includes Agora moderators Fragwuerdig and ClassicDAO, as well as Battle-Force, Cryptobytes, Vady, and Thi. Future expansion is possible through volunteering, and no governance vote is required for group formation.

Admin/Moderators Contact Information:

  • Fragwuerdig: X-@frag_dude

  • Classic DAO: X-@lunaclassiclassicdao

  • Battle-Force: X-@battleforcelunc

  • Cryptobytes: X-@cryptobytes906

  • Vady: X-@lunc119 (Current Commonwealth Admin)

  • Thi: X-@Thiiiiht (Thai Community Ambassador)

  • Ongoing Evaluation: Implement a monitoring system with quarterly reports from the moderators/admins (provided at no cost) to assess the platform’s effectiveness, inclusivity, and user satisfaction. Any major adjustments based on feedback will be subject to community governance votes.

Expected Outcomes

  • Boosted Participation: Higher engagement in governance activities through a more accessible and user-friendly platform.
  • Greater Inclusivity: Resolution of barriers for underrepresented community members, leading to broader representation in discussions.
  • Enhanced Governance Efficiency: Streamlined, productive conversations that accelerate decision-making and innovation within the Terra Classic blockchain.

Budget and Funding
This proposal requires no funding allocation, as it leverages existing community resources and volunteer efforts. The transition can be managed through in-kind contributions from moderators and the Lunc Goblins team.

Moderation and Compliance

To maintain a professional and safe community environment, all members must strictly adhere to the established rules and guidelines. Failure to comply will be subject to moderator action, including, but not limited to, warnings, temporary account suspensions, or permanent removal from the platform.

*Refer to Community Guidelines Post: General Community Guidelines - #2

*New Address: Https://agora.terra-classic.io

Conclusion
By designating Agora as the official forum, Terra Classic will advance toward a more decentralized, inclusive, and effective communication ecosystem. This step will empower the community, reduce reliance on problematic platforms, and reinforce our commitment to real-world decentralized solutions. We encourage all stakeholders to vote in favor of this proposal to invigorate Terra Classic’s future.

Disclaimer
This proposal does not confer any ownership, control, or authority over Agora or Terra Classic governance to the proposer, Lunc Goblins, or any associated parties. It solely aims to formalize community-driven platform adoption through governance approval.

1 Like
2

Would be a better option as it is readily accessible to the community. Makes Sense

1 Like
3

Suggestion: Designate the forum domain as discourse.terra-classic.community or discourse.terra- classic.com to demonstrate the official nature of the forum.

1 Like
4

We need to keep CW or if we don’t, find a way to migrate all of the historical data… Frag, Strath is this possible? It is the history of everything, can’t afford to let it die

5

Dear Hrwsy,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. This matter was thoroughly discussed during the development of our proposal, and we have included an updated address below for your reference.

6

What will happen to proposals #11653 and #11947?

Are they cancelled? Or will we have 2-3 ‘official’ discussion boards in parallel? Which will be the most “official-iest” forum now?

What will happen if a proposal is written anywhere else but the new ‘official’ forum? Does that mean validators can use it an as excuse to vote NO?

All in all I see 0 point in having such proposal as I believe people should be able to discuss proposals wherever they like. Validators themselves use random TG groups anyways, and don’t respect governance where it is expected that discussions will take place in the ‘official’ platform. Moreover, many validators don’t discuss proposals at all, and only give their reasons in the memo (which is wat too late for a feedback). OR they discuss the proposal on X.

So, I don’t understand fully what does ‘official’ mean here and what consequences follow it.

People use Frag’s Agora anyways so there is no point in cementing it through governance. Governance should be reserved for more serious/impactful decisions, not “who will be the forum moderator”. But like I said - low impact prop, doesn’t matter one way or another.

-LR

7

Dear LR,

Thank you for your detailed feedback and for highlighting these important questions. I’ll address these directly to clarify how this proposal works to designate Agora as the official forum for Terra Classic aligns with community needs and resolves potential concerns.

  1. For the Status of Proposals #11653 and #11947, these proposals are not cancelled or there isn’t any mention of this on this proposal. #11653, which passed and focused on enhancing governance and decentralization during a transition toward a Commonwealth style platform, laid foundational groundwork. #11947, also passed, called for creating an official community Commonwealth platform to foster unified discussions in which have resulted unsuccessful due to the lack of support or regional circumstances that won’t let most members access the designated forum. This proposal builds on these by designating Agora (at classic-agora.terra.money) as the official forum, effectively fulfilling their intent without creating parallel boards. This avoids fragmentation, ensuring one primary, “official-iest” venue for Terra Classic governance while respecting prior decisions.

  2. For the Proposals Written Elsewhere, writing or discussing proposals outside Agora does not invalidate them or provide validators an excuse to vote NO. The chain’s governance process remains on-chain via current voting tools. However, to promote transparency and community input, we encourage posting proposals on Agora for pre-vote discussions. This helps ensure feedback is centralized and accessible, but there’s no enforcement mechanism it’s about best practices, not restrictions.

  3. For Meaning of ‘Official’ and Consequences, ‘Official’ designates Agora as the community’s recognized hub for structured governance discussions, similar to how other chains use dedicated forums. It carries no punitive consequences; discussions can (and likely will) continue on Telegram, X, or elsewhere for informal brainstorming. The goal is to streamline feedback loops, address the issues you noted (e.g., validators using scattered channels or late memos), and make it easier for all stakeholders to engage meaningfully before proposals go live for voting. This doesn’t limit freedom, it enhances it by providing a neutral, moderated space that’s already widely used (as you mentioned with Frag’s Agora).

We agree governance should prioritize high-impact decisions, but centralizing discussions is precisely that, it reduces confusion, improves validator accountability, and supports the decentralized ethos by making participation more inclusive. This low signaling proposal formalizes what’s already organic community behavior without overreach.

If you’d like to discuss further or propose amendments, Agora is open for that. Your input strengthens Terra Classic and is most welcomed.

Best regards,

Classic DAO

8

First, we would like to express our gratitude to the validator node LuncGoblins for all their efforts. However, we cannot agree to this proposal for the time being, as its core is to replace the “SaaS platform” with a “validator-controlled private server,” which does not address the centralization issue.

We suggest that the proposal may be more applicable if the following conditions are met out of prudence:

  1. Multi-signature for management rights: Management rights shall not be exclusively held by LuncGoblins. Instead, a committee consisting of developers (e.g., OrbitLabs/L1TF), community representatives, and other validators shall jointly hold such rights.

  2. Data storage: Deploy automated scripts to upload the hash value and backup of the forum database to Arweave (AR) on a daily basis. This ensures permanent data retention while allowing anyone to immediately rebuild the forum if LuncGoblins ceases its services.

  3. Terminology adjustment: It is not recommended to use the term “Official”; instead, designate it as “Recommended Forum.” Additionally, retain entries for multiple forums in wallets to allow users to make their own choices.

1 Like
9

Hello BiNodes,

Thank you once again for your thoughtful input and for emphasizing prudence in advancing Terra Classic’s governance. We truly value perspectives like yours that prioritize decentralization and sustainability, and we’re happy to address your points directly to clarify how this proposal effectively tackles the issues at hand without introducing unnecessary complexities.

  1. On Centralization and the Platform’s Nature: We appreciate your concern about shifting from a SaaS platform like Commonwealth to what you’ve termed a “validator controlled private server.” However, this doesn’t accurately reflect Agora’s structure. Agora runs on Discourse, a fully open-source forum software that’s already thriving as a community led space with diverse moderators rom various community roles and not solely under Lunc Goblins’ control. This proposal simply formalizes an existing, accessible alternative that’s proven resistant to censorship and barriers, directly addressing Commonwealth’s longstanding regional restrictions and technical failures that have centralized exclusion rather than participation. Far from perpetuating centralization, designating Agora promotes broader, barrier free engagement, aligning with Terra Classic’s decentralized principles by leveraging a tool that’s organically community driven and less prone to proprietary pitfalls.

  2. Multi-Signature for Management Rights: While we respect the idea of distributed oversight, this initiative doesn’t require a multi-signature setup, as management is already handled collaboratively by a volunteer working group open to expansion via community involvement. Adding such a mechanism wouldn’t meaningfully alter the decentralized, volunteer based model and could introduce unneeded administrative hurdles without enhancing security or inclusivity in this context.

  3. Data Storage and Backups: Your suggestion for automated daily backups to decentralized storage like Arweave is noted, but it’s worth pointing out that Commonwealth operates under a similar SaaS model, which has historically limited transparent data handling and backups issues that have contributed to its unreliability. Agora’s open-source foundation allows for more flexible data management by the community, and while we’re committed to exploring migration of historical data where feasible, mandating advanced storage protocols here isn’t practical or differentiating, as the core goal is accessibility and continuity through volunteer efforts, not overhauling unrelated infrastructure.

  4. Terminology Adjustment (“Official” vs. “Recommended”): The term “Official” is used to clearly designate Agora as the primary community hub for governance discussions, helping to streamline input and reduce fragmentation without imposing any restrictions or exclusivity discussions can still occur freely elsewhere, like Telegram or X. Changing it to “Recommended” wouldn’t make a substantive difference and could dilute the signaling intent of the proposal, which is to encourage unified, transparent participation in a space that’s already widely adopted. It doesn’t dictate behavior or limit choices; it’s a practical endorsement to foster efficiency.

This no-funding proposal builds on community momentum to resolve real accessibility problems, enhancing decentralization by making governance more inclusive for all. We encourage ongoing dialogue and welcome you to contribute to the working group if you’d like to help shape the transition, it would better assist each proposer if you tackle these issues or speak about them before the proposal goes up for voting, as previously waiting until the voting phase to express your thoughts defeats the whole point and concept of discussion prior to voting.

Best regards,
Classic DAO

10

Hi ClassicDao:

Thank you for your reply. However, your explanation precisely confirms my concerns.

1、Regarding control rights: Open - source software (Discourse) cannot solve the problem of infrastructure centralization. If the root privileges and the database are completely in the hands of a single entity, and it refuses to introduce multi - signature (Multisig) as a check - and - balance mechanism, this is essentially a step backward. In the Crypto field, we refer to security mechanisms as “necessary safeguards”, not “administrative obstacles”.

2、Regarding data sovereignty: Automatically backing up the database to Arweave is technically fully feasible and inexpensive. Rejecting this means that the data security of the community still depends on “trust” in the operator, rather than “technical guarantees”.

3、Regarding the official status: Precisely because the word “official” has a strong exclusivity and guiding nature, we must have extremely strict decentralization requirements for the operating entity behind it. The current plan is too weak in the power structure to bear the weight of being “official”.

Out of responsibility for the long - term decentralized security of the LUNC community, we cannot support a plan that rejects checks and balances of power (multi - signature) and data sovereignty (decentralized backup) from becoming “official”.

11

Dear Binodes,

We appreciate your persistence in this discussion and your clear dedication to safeguarding the long-term decentralization and security of the Terra Classic community, its perspectives like yours that help refine our ecosystem. Let’s dive into your points again to explain why the proposal stands strong as is, without the proposed additions, and how it genuinely progresses our shared objectives.

  1. Control Rights and Infrastructure: It’s true that open source tools like Discourse aren’t a cure all for every centralization risk, but they provide a solid foundation for transparency and community replicability that far surpasses Commonwealth’s closed SaaS approach. Importantly, root access and the database aren’t held by a “single entity” they’re overseen by a broad volunteer working group with members from diverse backgrounds (Fragwuerdig, Battle-Force, Cryptobytes, Vady, Thi, and open to more via volunteering). Multi-signature isn’t being “refused” it’s simply not applicable or beneficial here, as it could add layers of complexity to a straightforward, collaborative setup without improving the volunteer model’s inherent checks. In crypto, safeguards should fit the contex, this isn’t about funds or high-stakes assets, but fostering accessible governance.

  2. Data Sovereignty and Backups: We don’t dispute the technical ease or low cost of Arweave backups, but incorporating them isn’t essential to this proposal’s focus on overcoming Commonwealth’s accessibility flaws. Relying on “trust” in operators is a fair critique, yet Agora’s open source setup empowers the community to handle data more flexibly than Commonwealth ever allowed. We’re already looking into migrating historical content where possible, and advanced backups can be a future enhancement driven by feedback, not a prerequisite that complicates this cost free transition.

  3. The “Official” Designation: We get the concern that “official” might imply heavy handed guidance, but in practice, it’s a lightweight endorsement to direct discussions toward a unified, barrier-free platform without barring alternatives like Telegram or X. The volunteer structure is robust enough for this role, as it emphasizes inclusivity over rigid controls. Demanding ultra strict decentralization measures risks paralyzing action on pressing issues, when the proposal’s simplicity is its key strength for organic adoption.

Our mutual goal is a secure, decentralized LUNC future, and this proposal advances that by fixing real world barriers without added risks or expenses. To that end again, engaging on these matters on forum discussions like for instance here “Agora” strengthens the process of building a viable proposal along community consensus, again the conversations where available for you and everyone to take part in them and volunteer roles where offered as this proposal focuses mainly on that being a Volunteer Effort. This recurrence of no participation prior to Voting, overall defeats open and transparent discussions. So I encourage you to tackle on this issues when proposals are up for discussion not for voting as it has happened before. This is a no funding proposal that builds on community momentum to resolve real accessibility problems, enhancing decentralization by making governance more inclusive for all. You have the choices exercise your vote.

Best Regards,

Classic DAO

12

I appreciate the team’s effort in revitalizing the forum, as LUNC desperately needs a working platform. The contribution is undeniable.

However, I must vote No as a matter of principle regarding security standards. Designating a platform as ‘Official’ requires higher safeguards like Multisig and decentralized backups. I cannot endorse a structure that relies solely on trust, but I will not block the community’s desire to move forward if the majority accepts these risks. I respect the work done, but urge the team to reconsider these security measures in the future

Meanwhile, since you’ve repeatedly brought up the timing of the questions I raised, seemingly trying to imply that I’m undermining the proposal process, let me briefly clarify here：

Timing vs. Truth: Valid security concerns do not expire because they were raised during the voting period. A flaw is a flaw, regardless of when it is identified.

13

I appreciate your thoughtful response, it’s clear you’re prioritizing the long-term integrity of the LUNC ecosystem, and that’s commendable. The emphasis on safeguards like multisig and decentralized backups is a fair point worth considering but a direct overkill over the encouraged volunteer community involvement. We are not looking for any sort of control, gatekeeping or similar as precisely that we don’t posses a multi-sig or anything similar this is just a volunteered initiative similar like the prior to proposals for Commonwealth that passed with ease and those where same Ideas community ad-hoc initiatives.

That said, the timing of your input does matter in the context of our community’s collaborative process. By consistently waiting until proposals are already in the voting phase to share these insights and this isn’t the first instance. It inadvertently limits the opportunity for open, pre-voting dialogue that could refine ideas and build consensus earlier. This pattern can feel like it undermines the spirit of fair discussion, as it doesn’t allow the team or other participants ample time to address or incorporate feedback before votes are cast.

To truly demonstrate care for the process and respect for your peers and delegates, I encourage you to take a more proactive role by engaging in discussions well before proposals reach the voting stage. Staying well-informed and voicing concerns earlier would not only honor the collaborative nature of our governance but also empower your delegates with a more transparent and considerate approach. Let’s work together to strengthen our community through timely participation.