JESUSisLORD Validator

https://x.com/ForTheCross_CH/status/2088810728832827421

I have voted yes on LUNC governance proposal #12224, which would set a cap for the community pool of 7B LUNC and 60M USTC, with the additional amounts to be transferred to the oracle pool in two stages, and the process for further amounts above the cap to be transferred to the oracle pool automatically by means of a later chain upgrade proposal. I support creating this additional source of funding for the oracle pool, resulting in better staking rewards for LUNC investors and improving the sustainability of the chain. The community pool is rarely used and the cap suggested is generous. The way the cap mechanism would work is that if there are any spend proposals the community pool will fill as normal up to the cap, before overflowing to the oracle pool. I have supported this concept for some time. You can see the proposal and details of the ongoing vote here: https://validator.info/terra-classic/governance/12224.

https://x.com/ForTheCross_CH/status/2087115967797288985

https://x.com/ForTheCross_CH/status/2084985370924679599

https://x.com/ForTheCross_CH/status/2084974003870216534

https://x.com/ForTheCross_CH/status/2083891250508206492

Thank you everyone who supported my validators and the 1.5% tax proposal. The proposal passed and has been officially implemented on-chain. Praise God! 🙏

I have voted yes on LUNC governance proposal #12223, which a community member brought to vote to try to implement the 1.5% on-chain tax.

I have voted no on LUNC proposal #12222 which is for funding to set-up Hyperlane, which would allow wrapped LUNC to be traded on other chains. I was not in support of the original proposal, as I don't support making fake LUNC on other chains. Also note there is a false validator low on the list with the name JESUSisLORD 3, which is not my validator.

I have voted yes for LUNC proposal #12221, which is a further chain upgrade from Orbit Labs to fix some issues which came up from the recent upgrade to Cosmos SDK 53.

I have voted no on LUNC governance proposal #12219 for a USTC staking system. This proposal says that there will be no minting (unlike the one that came recently), but it still has the issue of when Vegas brought this proposal earlier, that there is no suitable source of funding for staking rewards for USTC. We already need to focus on improving LUNC staking APR, we don't also need a seperate staking system for USTC which needs its own funding. I am opposed to using half or more of the USTC in the community pool for staking rewards for USTC as we should use those funds for development or other useful initiatives, rather than for a new staking system.

I have voted yes for LUNC governance proposal #12218 for the chain upgrade to Cosmos SDK 53 by Orbit Labs. This has been long in the works and the chain halt and upgrade will take place around 17 April.

Thank the Lord our God Jesus Christ for His great salvation! God bless you all my brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope you are doing well. Christopher.

I have voted no with veto on proposal #12216. This is a proposal by Vegas for a USTC staking system, a proposal I voted against earlier for reasons including that there is no suitable funding source. This has not changed, but now Vegas is proposing we should mint USTC for 10% APR staking rewards, taking USTC from deflationary to inflationary. I am opposed to minting LUNC or USTC, and see any efforts towards minting USTC as a dangerous move towards minting LUNC.

I have voted no with veto on proposal #12215, which proposes to adjust the tax split and lower burns from 0.4% to 0.1%, and increase funding to the community pool and oracle pool. I am firmly opposed to reducing burns and I support raising the burn tax.

I have voted no on proposal #12214 which is to create a new stablecoin called USTCC. I am not in support of proposals attempting to create new L1 coins. I don't support this trajectory for the chain.

I have voted yes to proposal #12213 which is to pay Orbit Labs for the first part of the SDK v53 upgrade proposal which completed the work developing the upgrade. Next Orbit Labs will plan and test the rollout for the chain upgrade to take place. They have continued to do good work.

I have voted no on LUNC proposals 12211 and 12212 which are for the development of a L1 community decentralised exchange seemingly by the developers Boosty Labs for $235,000 in development costs, let alone the additional costs that would be involved to supply liquidity. There are concerns regarding the history of the individual proposer. The money is sought up front. Boosty Labs is not KYC as far as we know only the CEO is known, thought it appears the company has worked on big projects before. Overall I don't think this is a project the chain should be looking at until it has substantially more funds available, aside from the other issues mentioned.

I have voted no on #LUNC governance proposal #12210, which proposes to change the recognised LUNC website approved by governance from terra-classic.money to terra-classic.io. The new website is made by Strathcole and has good information on technical documents but is not as appealing as a landing page. The reason for the proposal is some people were offended by a banner on the website asking for donations for it to be upgraded. Overall I don't support this change and believe the motivations to be mainly political.

I have voted no on proposal #12209, which is a revamped version of proposal #12206, for which I also voted no. My reasons for voting no are essentially the same, which you can read here https://t.me/JESUSisLORDValidator/370.