Reverse and Nullify Blacklisting Proposal #11832

This proposal aims to safeguard the integrity of the LUNC blockchain by reversing and nullifying proposal #11832, immediately stopping its implementation, and additionally instructing the L1TF to delete any blacklisting code from the LUNC codebase (Github) so it cannot be used in the future. It is vital to stop the dangerous proposal #11832 for the following reasons: - One our best and most experienced L1 developers Inon-man warns this proposal would "also alter the state and it also adds permanent threat to the blockchain". - Inon-man also said this proposal "raises significant concerns in the blockchain", that this feature could "cause significant harm to individuals in a situation where governance becomes dictatorial". - Inon-man also said "this feature has the potential to inflict long-lasting damage on Terra Classic". Inon-man is so concerned out of principle he said he "cannot approve this PR" (source for these comments is the Terra Classic Github). - Prominent validators and community members have raised their concerns at the damage this could cause to our blockchain. - This proposal was brought by Vegas, who is not a developer, and he does not understand the implications and damage this would do to our blockchain. - This proposal is motivated by greed to claim 800M USTC which is no longer in the communities possession. - Validators displayed hypocrisy in voting YES to blacklist funds in third party wallets but also rejecting strongly Terraports proposal to blacklist stolen customer funds, when arguably they have a better claim for a wallet to be frozen, this proves that greed was a strong motivator in some validators decisions. - The largest validator Allnodes was heavily pressures by blacklist activist members of the community to change their vote. Allnodes originally voted NO, then changed to ABSTAIN, then changed to YES. They made the wrong decision and should be given the opportunity to reverse it, as well as the other validators who voted YES. - A screenshot from Vegas was not sufficient legal proof of Risk Harbour's intentions regarding the wallet, and even if further proof was given, we should not violate our chain at anybody's request. - A blacklist can be abused for political purposes, or be subject to compelled use by law enforcement. - If one wallet can be blacklisted, then any can. This is a slippery slope and can bring legal risk to the chain, validators and developers if blacklisting is used against additional wallets (such as TFL's holdings). If theirs is first, yours might be next. Blacklisting overthrows immutability, the integrity of the blockchain, puts the safety of all investors funds at risk and is a great danger to the chain, not to mention the core problems it could bring as warned by inon-man. - This blacklisting proposal destroys the concept of "Not your keys, not your crypto" and decentralisation. In fact even if you hold the keys to your coins, your wallet could be added to the blacklist by a simple vote. This is tyranny, an abuse of power, is dangerous, and cannot be tolerated on the LUNC blockchain. Validators are given the opportunity to pass this proposal, and reverse their prior YES votes. We must put a stop to this implementation IMMEDIATELY, to protect LUNC and USTC, the safety of all investors wallets, and the very integrity of our blockchain. If this proposal passes then governance proposal #11832 is immediately nullified and the L1TF must stop all implementation of it and delete any blacklisting code from the LUNC code base (GitHub) so that it cannot be used in the future. JESUSisLORD LUNC Validator