Proposal to Update Terra Classic (LUNC & USTC) Website Link to terra-classic.io

Proposals
1

Proposal

This proposal seeks to update the official “website” link for Terra Classic (LUNC and USTC) on third-party platforms from:

https://www.terra-classic.money
to
https://www.terra-classic.io

Rationale

The current destination (terra-classic.money) now displays a banner requesting support for a proposed V2 site. That banner links to an Agora post containing donation wallet addresses.

This effectively uses the previously approved V1 site as a funding funnel for a new V2 initiative that has not been approved via governance, and conflicts with the explicit “no further funding requests” assurance provided under Proposal #12181.

While no mandatory community pool spend has occurred, the presence of active fundraising tied to the canonical “website” link represents a material change from the conditions under which the current destination was approved and introduces governance and endorsement risk.

This proposal is corrective in nature and aims to restore a neutral, governance-aligned canonical destination that is not used to solicit funding outside of an approved governance process.

Vote

Yes – Update the website link to terra-classic.io
No – Retain the current link
Abstain – No opinion

4 Likes
2

hexxagon:

  1. votes NO to a potential chain-saving proposal (USTprotocol) because “what if sun doesnt rise tomorrow”?

  2. instead proposes to change the ‘official’ website to the one they themselves own + looks much shittier.

#priorities

2 Likes
3

We don’t own / control terra-classic.io, the domain itself is owned by StrathCole and the website code resides at GitHub - terra-classic-io/website

1 Like
4

@Hexxagon ,

Thanks for putting a formal proposal forward. I’m going to respond in a structured way, because several statements in your post are either factually inaccurate, speculative, or missing the operational details required for governance to evaluate risk properly.

1. What Proposal #12141 did (and did not) do

Proposal #12141 was narrowly scoped: it asked the community to change the “website” link on third-party profiles (CMC and others) from Common / outdated destinations to https://terra-classic.money. It was an onboarding + visibility fix - a canonical “front door” link to reduce confusion and improve ecosystem discovery for newcomers, investors, press, and partners.

It did not:
• designate terra-classic.money as an “official Terra Classic website,”
• transfer ownership/custody of the site to governance,
• impose governance approvals on content changes.

In other words: #12141 was about where third parties should link, not about governance owning/operating a website.

2. “Broken commitment” / the PS line in #12141

Your proposal relies heavily on this clause:

“The author of the site refrains from making future requests for funding for the development of this site.”

Two clarifications are essential:

• I have honoured that principle for v1: terra-classic.money v1 has remained live and maintained without any governance spend request.

• The current v2 effort is not a governance spend request and not a community pool obligation. It is a voluntary donation campaign for an optional, materially larger upgrade (new scope), and nobody is required to fund it.

I understand why some readers interpret the PS line as “never ask for any support ever again.” The intended meaning was: v1 would not become a recurring governance liability. That remains true. v2 is an optional expansion of scope funded voluntarily; it does not convert #12141 into an obligation, and it does not “lock” the community into any payments (including any ongoing operating costs - those are only estimates, not compulsory fees).

v1 remains live regardless of v2 fundraising outcome.

3. “Neutrality” and “privately funded project” framing

Your proposal argues that a donation campaign makes the current destination “non-neutral” and increases “governance risk” due to perceived endorsement of a privately funded project.

That logic does not hold in a decentralized ecosystem. Public goods on PoS chains are often produced by individuals, teams, validators, and vendors - sometimes funded, sometimes not - and neutrality is not defined by “no one is ever compensated.”

Neutrality is defined by:
• custody and control (who holds credentials and domain),
• decision rights (who can approve changes),
• transparency and disclosure (who is funding what, and how conflicts are managed),
• operational resilience (SLA, incident response, continuity plans).

If your standard is “the canonical destination must be independent of any individual funding roadmap,” then that same standard must be applied equally to terra-classic.io. At the moment, your proposal treats .io as inherently neutral without providing the governance mechanics.

4. Reputation / institutional-grade requirement

One missing dimension in the proposal is the communications and reputation function of the canonical “website” link. Terra Classic still operates with a post-2022 reputation deficit, and third-party profiles are often the first touchpoint for investors, press, partners, and institutions. Governance should therefore evaluate the canonical destination not only on contribution workflow, but also on institutional-grade standards: clarity of narrative, trust cues, onboarding paths, and brand consistency. A functional directory alone is not sufficient to rebuild credibility at scale.

5. Conflict-of-interest / incentive alignment (relevant for governance)

One additional point that governance should consider: the proposed replacement destination (terra-classic.io) is operated by a party who is also an active validator. In Proof-of-Stake ecosystems, that creates a normal incentive alignment: routing the canonical “website” link to a validator-operated property can increase that validator’s visibility and, indirectly, delegations and revenue. This does not invalidate the work, but it strengthens the case for requiring clear disclosure and explicit governance mechanics (custody, maintainers, SLA, dispute resolution) before changing the canonical destination.

6. “Open contribution” does not equal decentralization without governance mechanics

A GitHub PR flow is a tooling choice. It is not, by itself, a decentralization model. The key question for governance is still: who holds custody and who has final decision rights.

For your proposal to be governance-grade, it must specify:
• who the maintainers/reviewers are,
• how many approvals are required,
• how maintainers are added/removed,
• who controls the domain and hosting credentials,
• what the SLA is,
• what the incident response process is,
• how disputes are resolved.

Without these, voters are being asked to approve a new canonical destination on assumptions rather than an accountable operating model.

7. Migration cost and reputational risk are understated

Changing the canonical destination again is not “a few days” in real ecosystem terms. Even if governance passes, it introduces:
• repeated outreach and re-alignment across many third parties,
• inconsistent update timing across platforms,
• SEO fragmentation and user confusion (“the canonical site keeps changing”),
• loss of continuity and trust for press/partners who already adopted .money.

A responsible proposal needs a concrete migration/comms plan, not just “requested to update.”

8. User-impact / marginal benefit framing

From an end-user perspective, terra-classic.money and terra-classic.io currently cover substantially overlapping ground as a canonical “front door” for discovery. The main incremental difference often cited is that terra-classic.io has integrated documentation. That is not a durable differentiator: v2 of terra-classic.money explicitly includes integrated docs as part of the upgrade. Given that, the marginal user benefit of switching the canonical destination now is limited, while the migration cost and reputational risk (fragmentation, confusion, repeated third-party outreach) remain significant.

9. A fair standard must apply to both destinations

Your proposal implies terra-classic.money is “tied to private monetization” and terra-classic.io is not.

That is not a factual statement. It is speculation on one side and an assumption on the other. If governance is evaluating “endorsement risk,” the correct approach is:
• require disclosure for any canonical destination (custody, maintainers, funding/support, conflicts),
• define what “neutral” means operationally,
• and choose based on user outcomes + governance mechanics, not insinuations.

10. Constructive path forward

If the genuine objective is reduced bus-factor and stronger governance hygiene, the community has options that do not require switching the canonical destination again:

• establish a transparent contribution workflow (public intake/backlog + criteria + cadence),
• implement continuity safeguards (credential escrow, co-admin/maintainer model),
• define an editorial policy and disclosure standard for the canonical site,
• and collaborate across resources (e.g., link prominently to terra-classic.io as a community resource hub while keeping a consistent canonical “front door”).

If governance wants to pursue switching the canonical destination, I respect that process - but the proposal should be amended with the missing governance mechanics (maintainers, custody, SLA, dispute process) and a concrete migration plan. Right now, the proposal asserts “governance-safe neutrality” without specifying the governance model.

5

@DawidSkinder,

Thank you for the detailed and structured response. I’ll respond in kind, focusing on governance clarity rather than rhetoric.

1. Scope of Proposal #12141 and governance reliance on representations

You are correct that Proposal #12141 did not designate an “official” website or transfer ownership to governance. That point is not disputed.

However, governance decisions are evaluated based on representations made at the time of voting, even when the scope is narrow. The PS clause was not incidental; it was included explicitly to address governance risk concerns about future funding dependency. Validators and voters relied on that assurance when approving the change.

The issue here is not legal ownership or scope creep — it is material reliance. When a proposal includes an explicit assurance to mitigate perceived risk, and that assurance later no longer holds, governance is justified in reassessing the decision.

2. Funding clarification and governance perception

I accept your clarification that:

  • v1 has not requested governance funding
  • v2 is framed as voluntary and optional

That said, governance risk is not limited to mandatory community pool spend. The concern raised in this proposal is endorsement risk, not obligation risk.

The canonical “website” link on third-party platforms is perceived externally as the endorsed front door of the ecosystem. When that destination becomes associated with fundraising — even voluntary — governance is exposed to:

  • repeated funding optics,
  • pressure (implicit or explicit) for future endorsement,
  • ambiguity for third parties about “official vs community vs funded”.

This is not a moral judgement; it is a risk management assessment.

3. Neutrality definition — agreement on framework, disagreement on outcome

I agree with your definition of neutrality being rooted in:

  • custody and control,
  • decision rights,
  • transparency,
  • operational resilience.

Where we differ is that terra-classic.money currently has no published governance mechanics addressing those points, whereas terra-classic.io is explicitly proposing to operate under an open, reviewable contribution and disclosure model.

This proposal is not asserting that .io is “inherently neutral by default”; it is asserting that:

  • it is not currently tied to a funding roadmap, and
  • it is structured to allow governance-aligned contribution and disclosure without requiring trust in a single operator’s future intentions.

If governance prefers to codify equivalent mechanics for .money, that is a valid alternative path — but those mechanics do not currently exist in published form.

4. Reputation and institutional-grade standards

Agreed: reputation, clarity, and onboarding quality matter.

However, institutional credibility is not only a function of polish; it is also a function of predictability and governance hygiene. From an external perspective, a canonical site that becomes associated with ad-hoc fundraising without formal governance structure introduces uncertainty, regardless of intent.

This proposal does not argue that directories alone rebuild trust; it argues that governance should not bind its canonical link to an evolving funding narrative without explicit accountability mechanisms.

5. Conflict-of-interest disclosure

You are correct that terra-classic.io is operated by a validator, and that incentive alignment should be disclosed. I agree, and disclosure is appropriate.

At the same time, validator operation is not unique in this ecosystem, nor is it disqualifying. The differentiator is whether:

  • decision rights are transparent,
  • contribution pathways are open,
  • governance expectations are explicit.

This proposal is open to adding explicit disclosure language if governance deems it necessary.

6. GitHub PRs and governance mechanics

Agreed: a PR workflow alone does not equal decentralization.

That is precisely why this proposal highlights governance alignment as a requirement, not an assumption. The intent is to move the canonical destination toward a model where:

  • maintainers and reviewers are defined,
  • custody is disclosed,
  • change history is auditable,
  • and no single party can unilaterally redefine the site’s role without visibility.

If the community prefers to formalize these mechanics further (for either destination), that strengthens governance — it does not weaken this proposal’s premise.

7. Migration cost and continuity

Migration cost is real, but it must be weighed against long-term governance cost.

The question is not “does switching again have friction?” — it does.
The question is whether it is preferable to:

  • accept short-term coordination cost now, or
  • normalize a precedent where proposal assurances can materially change without governance review.

This proposal takes the position that governance integrity outweighs temporary coordination friction.

8. Marginal benefit framing

This proposal is not based on feature comparison between .money and .io.

It is based on governance risk exposure and accountability. Even if v2 delivers parity or superiority, the underlying concern remains: the canonical destination should not depend on the evolving scope or funding posture of a single operator without explicit governance structure.

9. Equal standards — agreed

I agree fully that:

  • any canonical destination should meet the same disclosure and governance standards,
  • insinuation should be avoided,
  • decisions should be made on mechanics and outcomes.

This proposal does not seek to bypass that standard; it seeks to apply it.

10. Path forward

Your constructive alternatives are valid options, and governance may choose them.

This proposal presents one corrective path: moving the canonical link to a destination that is explicitly positioned as non-funded, open-contribution, and governance-aligned at this time.

If governance instead prefers to:

  • codify equivalent governance mechanics for terra-classic.money,
  • formalize custody, maintainers, and disclosure,
  • and reaffirm neutrality under a new explicit framework,

that is a legitimate outcome — but it requires action and specification, not assumption.

In summary, this proposal is not about ownership, effort, or intent.
It is about maintaining governance credibility when material representations change.

Governance reassessment under those conditions is not hostility — it is responsibility.

Respectfully.

2 Likes
6

For voters’ clarity, I’m going to keep this factual and procedural. Your response still leaves several governance-critical gaps unresolved.

A) The core premise (“assurance no longer holds”) is still incorrect

  • The PS assurance in #12141 was about v1 not becoming a governance funding dependency. That assurance still holds: v1 has not requested any governance spend and remains live.

  • v2 is a voluntary donation campaign for an optional scope expansion - not a community pool obligation, not an enforced payment model, and not a lock-in. The canonical destination remains available without mandatory payments; voluntary donations for an optional major upgrade do not create dependency.

B) You argue “endorsement optics” - but apply the standard asymmetrically

You claim fundraising optics make .money “non-neutral,” yet the same endorsement optics and incentives exist for any canonical destination, including validator-operated properties. In a PoS ecosystem, routing the canonical link to a validator-adjacent/validator-operated site has its own incentive and endorsement implications. This is a normal PoS incentive structure - it simply means the neutrality standard must be operational and applied symmetrically.

If governance is setting a neutrality standard, it must be operational and symmetric across both domains.

C) “terra-classic.io is open, reviewable, governance-aligned” is not evidenced today

At the time of writing, the .io site does not clearly publish (in a voter-visible place):

  • a public contribution link/workflow (e.g., GitHub link from the site),
  • who the maintainers/reviewers are,
  • approval thresholds and rules,
  • custody disclosure (domain/hosting credentials),
  • SLA / incident response / dispute resolution.

Saying “it’s auditable on GitHub” is not enough if the maintainer set and governance mechanics are undefined or undisclosed to voters.

D) Your proposed remedy is stronger than your proof

You argue governance integrity requires reassessment because “representations changed,” yet the key representation remains true for v1, and your proposed destination does not currently publish the governance mechanics you say are required.

E) The actionable path forward is simple

If you want this proposal to be governance-grade, please amend it to include (for terra-classic.io) a minimum viable governance specification:

  1. repository link visible from the site + documented contribution workflow,
  2. maintainer/reviewer list + approval policy,
  3. custody disclosure (domain/hosting),
  4. SLA + incident response + dispute resolution,
  5. migration/comms plan for third parties.

Without these, governance is being asked to switch the canonical destination based on asserted alignment rather than specified mechanics.

Respectfully, I’m not interested in debating rhetoric. I’m asking for the minimum operating details voters need to evaluate risk. Until those are published, the proposal remains incomplete.

On the “no funding narrative” standard and its real-world consequence

One more point, because it matters for Terra Classic’s trajectory:

If the governance standard becomes “the canonical destination must remain independent of any funding narrative,” then the logical conclusion is that the canonical site can never be materially improved unless a wealthy individual subsidizes it privately forever. That is not a serious governance standard for a decentralized L1. It effectively bans professional execution unless someone is willing (and able) to donate months of skilled work repeatedly at their own cost.

Terra Classic is operating in an environment where reputation recovery and growth are not optional. The ecosystem is still dealing with post-2022 reputational damage, and it is competing for attention and trust under constrained bandwidth. In that context, defaulting to “maintenance mode only” - shipping technical updates while underinvesting in product, onboarding, narrative, brand trust, and ecosystem visibility - is a strategic failure mode.

This is exacerbated by cultural and operational realities that have been discussed repeatedly in Terra Classic:

  • a “one thing at a time” mentality in a system with many validators and slow coordination,
  • limited execution bandwidth for non-code work (onboarding, documentation UX, communications, credibility assets),
  • and a community pool that has been inconsistently deployed toward adoption and reputation rebuild initiatives for a long period (with available funds fluctuating with price).

Respectfully: a “no funding / no roadmap / keep it minimal” approach may feel governance-safe on paper, but in practice it is a recipe for stagnation. And stagnation is exactly what Terra Classic cannot afford if the goal is to compete for users, builders, liquidity, and institutional credibility.

That is why v2.0 of terra-classic.money exists: not as “scope creep,” but as a necessary upgrade to the canonical front door, with integrated docs, multilingual structure, clearer onboarding paths, and institutional-grade narrative and UX. If governance wants stronger accountability mechanics, I support defining them. But banning funding optics as a principle is not governance hygiene; it is progress paralysis.

1 Like
7

A quick precedent point on the “funding optics” argument:

Bitcoin.org (arguably the most decentralized, most scrutinized network in the world) is openly community-funded and asks for donations to improve its website.

Voluntary donations for public infrastructure are not a governance failure. The governance failure is pretending progress must be free - or it doesn’t happen.

image
image1341×864 41.1 KB

image
image806×182 7.53 KB

1 Like
8

Thank you for your further reply. From our perspective it doesn’t add anything materially new to the previous discussion.

We have set out our position as to why we have concerns with the changes you propose to make, and the approach you plan to take, and we are now happy to let the community make a decision on that through governance as to whether this is acceptable or not.

2 Likes
9

@Raider , understood.

I’m also comfortable letting governance decide.

For the vote to be informed (especially for future readers), my only request remains procedural: please amend the proposal to publish the minimum operating details for terra-classic.io in a voter-visible place (maintainers/reviewers, approval policy, custody disclosure, incident/dispute process, and a migration/comms plan). Without that, governance is being asked to approve a canonical link change without the operating model being specified.

I’ll pause here unless/until those details are added.

10

You will reciprocate with the same details for your website also I assume? @DawidSkinder

3 Likes
11

Yes, in principle I agree: the same disclosure standard should apply to any canonical destination.

Two points for accuracy and process:

1.) This disclosure framework was not part of #12141. That proposal was about changing third-party links to a more useful front door, not about governance operating a website. What you’re asking for here is a proposed governance hygiene framework , which I’m not opposed to, but it should be discussed and applied consistently going forward, rather than used as a post-hoc implication of “breach” for #12141.

2.) I’m already aligned with publishing operating details for terra-classic.money as part of the v2.0 stewardship/continuity workstream (custody, editor/maintainer access model, contribution intake, incident/dispute process). I’ve mentioned this publicly (Agora/X/validator chats) and I’m happy to formalize it.

The key point remains: your proposal asks governance to switch the canonical destination now, while the operating model for terra-classic.io is not yet published in the proposal itself. If you add the minimum operating details for .io to the proposal, governance can evaluate both destinations against the same criteria.

12

We are happy that we have described in enough detail in this thread how terra-classic.io already operates to achieve transparency and governance compatibility.

The current maintainers/reviewers are defined already in the github org and github will also serve as the place for people to be able to see who they are at any time. Anyone can participate as a maintainer by providing content modifications/fixes through PRs and ad-hoc reviewing of proposed changes. Anybody with a github account can do so.

In terms of a migration/comms plan, should the community vote to change the canonical link, then we suggest, in the interests of the chain, that your existing website would either redirect to the new link or at least contain a prominent informational message/banner about the change with a link to the new site, for some agreed period of time. This would be coupled with announcements through the main Terra Classic social platforms and prominent Terra Classic aligned social accounts.

Beyond that, this forum discussion, the governance vote, and the final outcome also serves to inform of the (potential) change or status quo.

2 Likes
13

Thank you. This helps, but two points still need clarification for voter accuracy:

  1. Contributors = Maintainers? Contributors ≠ Maintainers? Please confirm. The “Contributors” section shows who has commits in the repo history; it does not, by itself, establish who holds approval/merge authority. In GitHub terms, “maintainer” implies permissioned review/merge rights, not just submitting PRs or having commits in the repo.

  2. “Anyone can become a maintainer” is not correct as stated. Anyone can submit PRs (contribute), but maintainer status implies merge/approval rights. Your own contribution doc distinguishes this by requiring approval “from the required number of maintainers.” So the governance-relevant question remains: who are the maintainers, what is the approval threshold, and how are maintainers added/removed?

Request (to make the proposal governance-grade): please publish in the proposal text and/or a MAINTAINERS.md / GOVERNANCE.md:

  • maintainer/reviewer list + roles
  • required approval threshold
  • process for adding/removing maintainers
  • custody disclosure (domain/hosting credentials)
  • SLA / incident response / dispute resolution

On migration/comms: if a vote passes, I’m open to discussing a time-boxed informational banner on terra-classic.money to reduce user confusion. I’m not committing to an unconditional redirect during the discussion phase.

1 Like
14

Anyone (of course having acquired appropriate experience) can become a maintainer. The term “Maintainer” also encompasses the concept of github Collaborators with the difference largely being the types of permissions granted. It is likely that the maintainers/collaborators of the repo will be selected over time from the pool of regular contributors to the repo, but it doesn’t have to be exclusively from this pool of individuals.

The process is for individuals to make a request to the github organisation owner (Strath) to become a maintainer, the owner evaluating if the individual has the requisite experience to execute the role effectively, and then granting the necessary repo permissions to the individual.

It is up to Strath whether he wants to provide the additional items you listed within the repo.

I would also make the point that you are not the arbiter of whether this proposal is “governance grade” as you call it, and the merit of this prop is for the community to decide.

2 Likes
15

I have updated the first post of this thread to reflect a more concise reasoning for this proposal, keeping it short and to the point, we will leave things as is and let the community decide the final outcome through governance voting.

No further edits will be made to the first post in this thread, as it represents the proposal that is now up for voting on our blockchain.

16

Tbh, i think if you just put the effort into refining the website instead of spending hours on here, you’d not need funding.

Unless you are using AI writing all this simply consumes hours of writing and reading time and simply detracts from the meaning of the proposal.

2 Likes
17

Rexyz, thank you for your comment and advice.

You chose to offer this advice, which adds absolutely nothing to the matter and only attempts to build my image of incompetent/bad time manager.

So I hope you won’t mind if I return the favor:

Tbh, I think if you had put effort into the security and development of TerraPort and $TERRA instead of playing poker, maybe you wouldn’t have a token that has depreciated by ≈98% (at ATL level currently) and a DEX that had its last major update almost a year ago.

P.S. I proudly use a lot of AI in my daily work. It’s an invaluable tool for work optimization. I recommend giving it a try.

2 Likes
18

Proposal #12210 has been submitted and is currently in the deposit stage.

This proposal seeks to update the official Terra Classic website link to terra-classic.io.

:link: https://station.hexxagon.io/proposal/columbus-5/12210

#TerraClassic #LUNC #Hexxagon

19

Hexxagon - noted on the edit. I’ll keep this procedural and voter-focused.

1) The “funding funnel / governance breach” framing is not accurate.

The banner is informational and links to an Agora discussion about v2. Optional donations are described there; there is no governance spend request, no community pool obligation, no paywall, and no lock-in.

The assurance in #12181 addressed governance dependency for v1 (i.e., avoiding a mandatory funding burden). v1 remains live and maintained without any governance funding request. That assurance still holds.

2) “Endorsement risk” must be applied symmetrically.

If the standard is “canonical destination must not be associated with funding optics,” then the practical outcome is: the canonical site can only improve if a wealthy individual subsidizes it privately forever. That is not a realistic governance standard for a decentralized L1.

Conversely, routing the canonical link to a validator-operated / validator-adjacent property has its own incentive and endorsement implications (visibility → potential delegations/revenue). That doesn’t disqualify it; it simply means governance must require disclosure and operating mechanics either way.

3) If this proposal is “corrective” and “governance-aligned,” it must publish the operating model for terra-classic.io in the proposal itself.

Right now voters still do not have, in a voter-visible place:

  • Custody & control: who controls the domain registrar, hosting, and production credentials

  • Maintainer set: who has merge/production rights; approval thresholds; how maintainers are added/removed

  • Policy: content/edit criteria, dispute resolution, incident response/SLA

  • Migration/comms plan: concrete steps/timeline for third-party updates + how user confusion/SEO fragmentation will be managed

4) Request: please amend the proposal to include the above minimum operating details for terra-classic.io.

I’m comfortable letting governance decide - but governance should not be asked to switch the canonical destination on asserted “neutrality” without the accountable operating model being specified.

20

SM - 60
SM - 601176×1176 154 KB

Quality-of-life update on http://terra-classic.money:

  1. Maintanance via Github - GitHub - Terra-Classic-money-Website/Terra-Classic.money: Github reposytory for Terra-Classic.money website that will allow Terra-Classic community members to to easily submit suggestions for changes.

We’re in the process of implementing Github as transparent tool that will allow members of the #TerraClassic community to suggest changes to the site.

The tool will be fully operational in the coming days.

  1. Independent maintainers have been assigned:

I am pleased to announce that @ponimajushij @DonLunc @WhalliamFrond & El_PACO_LUNC have agreed to help evaluate the merits of changes suggested by the Terra Classic community.

These are people who are not validators on Terra Classic, which eliminates the conflict of interest.

#LUNC #USTC #TerraClassic #TerraClassicNeedsMoreTshirts #TerraClassicNeedsMoreMarketing