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

[DawidSkinder]

Adding to the points raised by @Bullboss5 and @LunaClassicNode.com :

1) Does switching to terra-classic.io actually reduce risk?

Not based on what is currently voter-visible.

Today, terra-classic.io is still ultimately controlled by the domain holder (domain custody = final control). In addition, the site’s change control is concentrated in a small maintainer group (5 people) who can approve/reject changes. “PRs are possible” but it up to those 5 maintainers if they are approved. It is not the same thing as decentralized control or guaranteed continuity.

By contrast, terra-classic.money now also has independent maintainer/reviewer group that includes non-validators (specifically to reduce validator incentive conflicts) and a public GitHub (workflow is in process of preparation right now).

So the “single point of failure / centralization” critique is not uniquely solved by switching domains. It simply shifts where the custody and gatekeeping sit.

2) What concrete positives does this proposal deliver vs today?

So far, the positives presented are essentially: “PRs exist” and “no donation visibility.” But:

• PRs ≠ decentralized control (they are a contribution mechanism, not a custody/continuity model).
• “No donations” is an optics preference, not a security model.

Meanwhile, switching the canonical link, apart of introducing critical centralization, also adds clear downside and risk:

• user/partner confusion and comms churn across third-party platforms
• SEO fragmentation (split authority between two competing “official” destinations)
• reputational noise for a change that does not clearly improve safety
• a UX/brand step backward relative to what Terra Classic needs for investor onboarding and ecosystem discovery

[Hexxagon]

This is not the first time it was discussed about putting up something on the terra-classic.money site to bring in funding, I saw the reasoning behind it, but found it would be in “bad taste”, and even you Dawid agreed on that, plus it was stated that a prop would most likely go up if it ever happened to combat that, so why is it when its funding you that your stance changes?

You state terra-classic.money now has a GitHub and soon a workflow, but will it have the website source code open to the public to contribute against?

[DawidSkinder]

@Hexxagon ,

Re the TG screenshots from closed group: I understand that group members can share messages externally. Still, using months-old chat snippets during an active governance vote to imply bad faith is not a constructive way to assess voter risk.

More importantly, the screenshot is being used in a misleading way.

1) That May 2025 discussion was about paid sponsorship/advertising (e.g., idea that Terra Casino could sponsor terra-classic.money) on a canonical destination. I said then (and still agree) that paid promotion on an “official” link can look like bad taste and create conflicts.

By saying “However your idea Dj_Trev may be utilized in the future, somewhere else” I ment the option to build dedicated link hub (seperate website) for Layer 2 projects (that currently are not listed on terra-classic.money).

2) This situation was not that.

The banner I added was a temporary informational notice pointing to a public Agora discussion about a proposed v2 initiative. It was not ad inventory, not a paywall, not forced payment, and it did not involve any Community Pool spend.

3) On GitHub / transparent contribution (Framer reality):

terra-classic.money is built on Framer, so there is no public “source code repo” that anyone (including me) can expose for code PRs. The transparent workflow I’m implementing is therefore suggestion + review, not code merges: community members submit proposed changes via GitHub Issues (and supporting materials), independent non-validator maintainers/reviewers assess them, and I (or any other editor, since we can have them)
implement approved changes manually in Framer where feasible.

Same goal / effect: auditable input & documented decisions = easy tool for community contribution.

4) Back to the proposal:

None of this demonstrates that any “obligation” was broken. Voters should decide based on whether switching the canonical link to terra-classic.io reduces risk and improves outcomes.

[Hexxagon]

It shows that your willing to bend the rules so long as it is you that benefits from the outcome, you can slice this any way you want, but the banner that was up on the site directed governance approved traffic to a Agora post that had DONATION wallet addresses in it, regardless of if you asked people to donate into them, it was inferred by simply having those wallet addresses listed there, this is not what prop #12181 approved, it was the exact opposite actually, as there was a clause in it stipulating no further funding requests would come to the “site”, regardless of if its V1, V2, or V999, and that was part of the package deal that sold people on passing that prop to point the traffic at terra-classic.money.

Its up to the community now to vote the way they think is best, with all the facts laid out as they are, including month old Telegram chat snips.

[DawidSkinder]

@Hexxagon,

This is still an assertion, not a demonstrated obligation breach.

1. No Community Pool spend was requested or used. The v1 site was delivered and operated without CP funding.

2. The banner was temporary and only linked to an Agora discussion. It did not add a paywall, restrict access, or create any on-chain dependency. I removed it during voting to keep optics neutral.

3. If you believe Proposal #12181 creates a binding rule of “no donation references anywhere linked from the site,” please quote the exact clause and explain how it applies to a discussion thread link (not a CP spend, not a payment gate, not a site takeover).

4. On evidence standards: a governance vote should be decided on proposal text, on-chain facts, and voter-visible operating disclosures—not selective Telegram screenshots that were never part of the governance record.

PS. Using out-of-context private chat snippets during an active vote to imply misconduct is not a governance-aligned way to assess risk. For me, this alone is an additional “No” signal on process integrity - on top of the unresolved centralization/custody disclosures and the broader governance-hygiene issues already raised.

[Hexxagon]

Hi @DawidSkinder

Following the passing of governance proposal #12210, the canonical website URL for Terra Classic has been updated to:

https://terra-classic.io

We’re requesting that a clear banner be added to the terra-classic.money website for a duration of 30 days to inform visitors that the canonical URL has changed per governance, and to direct users to the new address.

This will help ensure users are aware of the governance-approved canonical URL and reduce any potential confusion during the transition period.

Please let us know once this has been added, or if anything is needed from our side.

Thanks,
Hexxagon

[LunaRocket]

lol why would he do that.