Terra Classic statsLUNC · USTC · ON-CHAIN DATA
Reading the proposal and its separately reported chain context.
Loading the proposal. Its status, vote amounts and original source times will appear when the readings are ready.
Back to governanceWaiting for evidence.
Waiting for evidence.
Waiting for evidence.
Waiting for evidence.
This pending view does not establish a proposal result, current voting power or a successful source read.
Dear Terra Classic Governance and Validator Community, I hope this message finds you well. Following the recent discussions on Proposal #11959 regarding the adjustment of parameters, our team has carefully considered the feedback and concerns raised by the community. Upon thorough evaluation, it has become evident that the proposed changes would require a substantial amount of effort from developers to implement new parameters. In light of this, we have decided to submit a revised proposal, aiming to streamline the process and prioritize the restoration of 130 validators on Terra Classic. Our objective is to ensure the continued decentralization and robustness of the network while minimizing the burden on developers. Proposal Overview: Restoration of 130 Validators Rationale: The initial proposal aimed at adjusting parameters for optimization, but after careful consideration, we acknowledge the potential challenges and complexities associated with its implementation. To maintain the integrity of the Terra Classic network, we propose prioritizing the restoration of 130 validators as a more immediate and feasible goal. Key Points: Validator Count: Restore the validator count to 130 to enhance decentralization. Parameter Adjustments: Postpone minimum stake parameter adjustments for future consideration to avoid undue strain on developers. We believe that prioritizing the restoration of 130 validators aligns with the community's interests and ensures the continued success of Terra Classic. We are committed to fostering open communication and collaboration to achieve consensus on crucial matters affecting the network. We appreciate your time and attention to this matter and look forward to constructive discussions within the Terra Classic community. Also don't miss out on the opportunity to supercharge your staking journey. Delegate more now and watch your rewards grow exponentially! https://station.terraclassic.community/validator/terravaloper1qu5lp6ywxnvms4ja8lkwpqthn2y0t75kscazph 1ST#BAHRAIN The following options outline the voting choices and their implications for the proposed changes: YES: By selecting 'YES,' you are expressing your approval for the increases in the validator set from 100 to 130.and postpone minimum stake parameter adjustments for future consideration by the developers based on Proposal #11959. NO: Opting for 'NO' indicates your disapproval of the proposed increases in the validator set from 100 to 130. NO WITH VETO: A 'NoWithVeto' vote signifies that the proposal is considered spam, irrelevant to Terra Classic, disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or violates the current rules of engagement set by Terra Classic governance. If the count of 'NoWithVeto' votes surpasses one-third of the total votes, the proposal will be rejected, and the deposited funds will be burned. ABSTAIN: If you choose to 'ABSTAIN,' you are contributing to the quorum without formally endorsing or opposing the proposal. This option is suitable for those who wish to acknowledge their presence in the voting process without taking a stance on the proposal itself.
Connect Keplr to read your vote and review a new vote or update while the chain keeps voting open.
REJECTED · Voting deadline
Your wallet holds the keys and approves each transaction. A submitted vote can have no voting power; participation weight and final eligibility are determined by the chain.
Submitted
31 Dec 2023, 13:36:08 UTC
Vote closed
21 Jan 2024, 12:11:11 UTC
Not approved
The proposal did not produce an approved governance action.
Proposal status, current block and node version are separate responses with their own original clocks.
A reported PASSED status for routed protocol messages is consistent with successful governance handlers in supported SDK versions. The production fork and its version at execution are not independently established here. A text mandate still needs delivery evidence; a requested treasury payment is not a reconciled recipient payout.
Current block response metadata
Reported response header height: 30752482 · reported
Public requested / response origin: Withheld or unavailable / Withheld or unavailable
Node info response metadata
Current or final voting power, calculated from the on-chain tally.
Historical bonded stake and vote-close parameters are not available here. Turnout and threshold checks are withheld; the recorded proposal status remains authoritative.
Amounts use the separate tally endpoint response.
Selected tally
Current staking pool
Each proposed field is compared only with the returned response from its own module.
Displaying 1 of 1 proposed parameter fields; 0 outside the 24-field display limit. 0 matched, 0 different, 1 unavailable among displayed checks.
Staking Max Validators
Original module response evidence unavailable.
Each clock belongs to that module response, before later requests and page assembly. Cached data keeps its original completion time. Missing, invalid, future or ambiguous source evidence withholds the current comparison; unavailable does not mean unchanged.
Matching compares the displayed serialized field values. A current match or difference does not establish historical causation, which proposal last changed a value, an independently verified execution receipt, a paid recipient or delivery. Separately read modules have no common-height guarantee; provider-reported headers do not authenticate the chain state. Truncated or unavailable checks cannot establish a complete proposal-wide parameter match.
Changes between retained samples near vote close and the 7, 30, and 90 day targets. Sample times and a 36 hour tolerance show how closely each pair matches its target.
Retained outcome assembly available
These retained comparisons have a separate assembly clock. It does not refresh the original proposal, block, node or parameter source clocks.
These times describe optional assembly, separate from retained sample capture times and original upstream response completion. Optional outcome work has a 1.2-second wait budget. Core reads and server load can make the total response take longer. The same admitted work continues after that wait; later requests can reuse its completed result. The original core cache and source clocks remain unchanged. No automatic page polling is added.
Average block time
Preferred signal: context
/cosmos.gov.v1.MsgExecLegacyContent/cosmos.params.v1beta1.ParameterChangeProposalReported response header height: 30752482 · reported
Public requested / response origin: Withheld or unavailable / Withheld or unavailable
Cached responses keep their original completion clocks. The block header time is a reported chain time, separate from HTTP completion and page assembly. Missing, invalid, future, wrong-chain or legacy source evidence is withheld. The block and node-info reads have no common-height guarantee; reported response metadata does not authenticate chain state.
A current block reaching an upgrade target does not prove software activation or validator adoption. A separately reported current node version does not establish the historical execution version or which proposal caused it. These responses do not independently verify execution receipts, recipient payouts or off-chain delivery.
Current tallying parameters
Current reported SDK context
The model uses SDK0.53.6/math1.5.3 fixed18-place quotient and half-even rounding on reported integer aggregates. Quorum allows equality; approval and veto require strictly greater shares. Expedited approval uses its separately returned expedited threshold. Missing supported SDK/rule/threshold evidence withholds decisions. Internal fractional voting power and production custom tally logic are not reconstructed or independently established.
Cached inputs keep their original completion clocks. These independently read responses have no common-height guarantee; reported headers do not authenticate chain state. Missing, invalid, future or legacy evidence is withheld. Reported zero votes stay zero; unavailable amounts are not zero votes.
Current stake and thresholds are shown only as current context. They are not used to reconstruct a closed proposal’s turnout or threshold result. This does not establish historical voter eligibility, voting weights or vote-close rules. Amounts are approximate displayed LUNC from reported micro amounts; these reads do not verify execution, payouts or delivery.
Quorum
Not available
Participation unavailable
Approval
Not available
35.01% decisive Yes
Veto
Not available
1.13% of participation
What this message can change—not a prediction of price.
7 day target
This comparison applies to passed proposals.
Sample times are retained capture timestamps, not original upstream read times or verified chain heights. The nearest supported sample within 36 hours of each target is used; equally close samples prefer the earlier capture. Identical duplicates are merged and conflicting values at the same clock are withheld.
This is a change between two retained numeric samples, not complete coverage of the intervening period. Timing and metric changes do not prove the proposal caused an effect, executed a protocol action, paid a recipient or delivered a promised result.
30 day target
This comparison applies to passed proposals.
Sample times are retained capture timestamps, not original upstream read times or verified chain heights. The nearest supported sample within 36 hours of each target is used; equally close samples prefer the earlier capture. Identical duplicates are merged and conflicting values at the same clock are withheld.
This is a change between two retained numeric samples, not complete coverage of the intervening period. Timing and metric changes do not prove the proposal caused an effect, executed a protocol action, paid a recipient or delivered a promised result.
90 day target
This comparison applies to passed proposals.
Sample times are retained capture timestamps, not original upstream read times or verified chain heights. The nearest supported sample within 36 hours of each target is used; equally close samples prefer the earlier capture. Identical duplicates are merged and conflicting values at the same clock are withheld.
This is a change between two retained numeric samples, not complete coverage of the intervening period. Timing and metric changes do not prove the proposal caused an effect, executed a protocol action, paid a recipient or delivered a promised result.
Staking ratio
Preferred signal: context
7 day target
This comparison applies to passed proposals.
Sample times are retained capture timestamps, not original upstream read times or verified chain heights. The nearest supported sample within 36 hours of each target is used; equally close samples prefer the earlier capture. Identical duplicates are merged and conflicting values at the same clock are withheld.
This is a change between two retained numeric samples, not complete coverage of the intervening period. Timing and metric changes do not prove the proposal caused an effect, executed a protocol action, paid a recipient or delivered a promised result.
30 day target
This comparison applies to passed proposals.
Sample times are retained capture timestamps, not original upstream read times or verified chain heights. The nearest supported sample within 36 hours of each target is used; equally close samples prefer the earlier capture. Identical duplicates are merged and conflicting values at the same clock are withheld.
This is a change between two retained numeric samples, not complete coverage of the intervening period. Timing and metric changes do not prove the proposal caused an effect, executed a protocol action, paid a recipient or delivered a promised result.
90 day target
This comparison applies to passed proposals.
Sample times are retained capture timestamps, not original upstream read times or verified chain heights. The nearest supported sample within 36 hours of each target is used; equally close samples prefer the earlier capture. Identical duplicates are merged and conflicting values at the same clock are withheld.
This is a change between two retained numeric samples, not complete coverage of the intervening period. Timing and metric changes do not prove the proposal caused an effect, executed a protocol action, paid a recipient or delivered a promised result.