Well well #LuncCommunity
How’s the tax increase working out for you?
I’m not seeing the volume! 45% down vs. pre the tax increase.
How’s the tax increase working out for you?
I’m not seeing the volume! 45% down vs. pre the tax increase.
Latest posts 5
Linked in someway to @Greenpeace06_09
What do you expect? Unqualified, uneducated clowns that should not be allowed to hold any weight on decisions for the chain.
Politics is not a validators job. When will the community wake up
What do you expect? Unqualified, uneducated clowns that should not be allowed to hold any weight on decisions for the chain.
Politics is not a validators job. When will the community wake up
🚨 𝗟𝗨𝗡𝗔 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗞𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗖𝗘 𝗕𝗡𝗕 - 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗔 𝗧𝗘𝗖𝗛𝗡𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗢𝗡 𝗧𝗢 𝗩𝗢𝗧𝗘 𝗡𝗢 🚨
Luna Strike Force BNB has voted NO on #LUNC Proposal #12230 with 0.95% voting power.
Their memo?
"In order for me to vote Yes, I need the people who ask for the votes to answer public questions on X..."
But what does any of that have to do with the code being voted on?
𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴.
Proposal #12230 is not about personalities.
It is not about arguments on X.
It is not about whether somebody answered your questions.
𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗶𝘅 𝗮 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗛𝘆𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗴.
The proposal migrates 13 governance-owned Hyperlane infrastructure contracts to code containing upstream fix #142.
The issue being fixed is 𝗱𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿-𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 in the multisig ISM.
That is what validators are being asked to assess.
If there is a technical reason to oppose #12230, publish it.
Show the problematic code.
Show why upstream #142 should not be deployed.
Show what security or operational risk the migration creates.
Show the better technical solution.
𝗕𝘂𝘁 "𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝘆 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗫 𝗼𝗿 𝗜 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗡𝗢" 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
Validators inherit the votes of delegators who do not vote themselves. That makes governance voting a responsibility, not leverage for settling disagreements on social media.
At the time of checking, #12230 stands at:
🟢 YES: 70.89%
🔴 NO: 22.07%
⚫ NWV: 0.14%
🟡 ABSTAIN: 6.90%
Quorum has been reached and the pass threshold is currently reached.
𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹.
𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗱𝗲.
𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗮 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗰.
Don't hold a technical fix hostage because somebody didn't give you the response you wanted on X.
#LUNC #TerraClassic #USTC #BINANCEView quoted post on X
Once again powerful validators halting progress. Unfortunately. I think a lot of this is self delegating. The active set is rotten to its core.
🚨 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗡𝗢𝗪 𝗪𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗢𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥 𝗢𝗡𝗘...
JESUSisLORD and JESUSisLORD 2 have BOTH voted NO on #LUNC Proposal #12230.
Combined voting power shown:
JESUSisLORD 2 - 4.35%
JESUSisLORD - 4.17%
𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝟴.𝟱𝟮% 𝗼𝗳 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗡𝗢.
And the reason given for either vote?
𝗡𝗼𝗻𝗲.
This proposal migrates 13 governance-owned Hyperlane contracts to code containing the upstream fix for a known duplicate validator-signature counting issue.
If you're going to use more than 8% of #LUNC governance voting power to oppose a technical security fix, I think delegators deserve to know 𝗪𝗛𝗬.
What exactly is wrong with the migration?
Which contract should not be migrated?
What is wrong with upstream fix #142?
What technical risk does passing #12230 create?
𝗩𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗡𝗢.
But when you're carrying billions of delegated $LUNC and wielding this much governance power, explain the reasoning - particularly when you're opposing a proposal fixing identified infrastructure code.
This is exactly why governance transparency matters.
𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 - 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲.
Your stake gives them that voting power.
#LUNC #TerraClassic #USTC #BINANCEView quoted post on X
It’s plain to see who the real scammer is. It’s not hard to see!
🚨 𝗟𝗘𝗧’𝗦 𝗧𝗔𝗟𝗞 𝗔𝗕𝗢𝗨𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 “.𝟬𝟬𝟬𝟱 𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡” 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗚𝗘𝗧𝗦 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗘𝗦𝗦.
@Greenpeace06_09 repeatedly tells the #LUNC community that he has research and education others do not have, including his claimed understanding of Binance and its plans for Terra Classic.
But there is an important part people should understand:
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 “𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻” 𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆.
According to his own public posts, access to the private Telegram group is connected to delegating to GreenpeaceUNITED and making a donation to one of the charities he specifies.
On 10 May 2026, he laid out the criteria himself: delegate, donate and don't stake with validators he labels scammers.
On 3 May he went even further, saying that redelegating anywhere other than Luna Strike Force would mean forfeiting your Telegram place:
“𝗡𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.”
That deserves scrutiny.
𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘 👇
📅 𝟲 𝗗𝗘𝗖 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱
Telegram opens following a “1T+ mass burn” or at .0005, with donation requirements mentioned.
x.com/Greenpeace06_0…
📅 𝟭𝟯 𝗗𝗘𝗖 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱
At .0005 he says he will open the chat and begin:
“revealing some of my 25 percent”
x.com/Greenpeace06_0…
📅 𝟭𝟰 𝗝𝗔𝗡 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲
“Education on X ends at .0005”
x.com/Greenpeace06_0…
📅 𝟯𝟬 𝗔𝗣𝗥 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲
He says he is “not leaving”, but will begin taking his delegators off X at .0005.
x.com/Greenpeace06_0…
📅 𝟲 𝗦𝗘𝗣 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲
The chat still isn't open.
Again, .0005 is given as the threshold.
He also says:
“as the price increases people will have to donate more”
And says the opportunity to join will close WELL BEFORE .0005.
x.com/Greenpeace06_0…
📅 𝟮𝟭 𝗦𝗘𝗣 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲
“I won't stop educating this community.”
x.com/Greenpeace06_0…
📅 𝟰 𝗢𝗖𝗧 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲
A St. Jude donation or donation to his “4 Families” wallet is described as:
“part of my criteria”
for admission to the .0005 chat.
He says people may still delegate after the first mass burn, but they won't be admitted to the chat if they haven't qualified.
x.com/Greenpeace06_0…
📅 𝟲 𝗢𝗖𝗧 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲
Education is again said to be coming off X at .0005, now with the timing described as:
“some time between late October and early 2027”
x.com/Greenpeace06_0…
𝗦𝗢 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟 𝗗𝗘𝗔𝗟?
For almost a year, .0005 has repeatedly appeared as the key threshold.
But across those posts we've also had:
- .0005
- .0005 OR a mass burn
- donations
- donations potentially increasing with price
- delegation requirements
- restrictions on where members can redelegate
- admission potentially closing BEFORE .0005
- and now a timeline stretching from late October 2026 into early 2027
Meanwhile, #LUNC hasn't reached .0005 and the private room still isn't open.
And let's clear up another point.
𝗧𝗛𝗘 “𝟮𝟱%” 𝗜𝗦𝗡'𝗧 𝗔 𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗥𝗘𝗤𝗨𝗜𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧.
It refers to research/information he says he intends to reveal privately rather than publicly on X.
On 21 August he put his philosophy plainly:
“I'm not here for everyone. Only those who I believe are the most deserving.”
x.com/Greenpeace06_0…
And .01 is a separate figure appearing in his later price and charity discussions.
𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗧𝗛𝗘 #𝗟𝗨𝗡𝗖 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗜𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗘:
If information is genuinely intended to educate and protect the community, why should access depend on delegating to a particular validator, donating according to criteria set by that validator, and remaining within an approved group of validators?
But requiring delegation and a qualifying donation for access to private information is still asking individual community members to meet financial conditions.
𝗗𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗺𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝘁.
Read the posts above.
Read the dates.
Read the conditions.
Then make up your own mind.
$LUNC #USTC #BINANCEView quoted post on X
I have no problem to KYC the val if necessary. I have been labeled a scammer many times too.
Laughable when you consider how many free airdrops I gave to my delegates over the years.
I’ll put cash up to bring a class action lawsuit against this charlatan
Laughable when you consider how many free airdrops I gave to my delegates over the years.
I’ll put cash up to bring a class action lawsuit against this charlatan
🚨 @Greenpeace06_09 - 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗛𝗔𝗦 𝗚𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝗕𝗘𝗬𝗢𝗡𝗗 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗔𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 🚨
You have now publicly accused me of being a “𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿” and claimed that my credibility was “destroyed” because I was supposedly “exposed”.
Those are extremely serious allegations about my character and reputation.
So here is your opportunity:
𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘.
Show the #LUNC community exactly who I have scammed, what I supposedly did, when I did it and the evidence proving it.
Who I follow is 𝗡𝗢𝗧 evidence.
Who blocks me is 𝗡𝗢𝗧 evidence.
Guilt by association is 𝗡𝗢𝗧 evidence.
Your personal opinion is 𝗡𝗢𝗧 evidence.
The Lunanauts → StatsBin rebrand was public. I have never attempted to conceal who operates the validator.
If you cannot substantiate your accusation that I am a scammer, 𝗜 𝗮𝗺 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁.
I am also preserving screenshots and records of these statements.
If these allegations continue, I will consider obtaining legal advice regarding 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻/𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗹 and the appropriate remedies available to protect my reputation.
You don't get to repeatedly brand someone a criminal or scammer on social media without being prepared to substantiate what you're publishing.
Criticise my votes.
Criticise StatsBin.
Criticise my validator.
But if you're going to publicly call me a 𝗦𝗖𝗔𝗠𝗠𝗘𝗥, bring the evidence.
𝗣𝗨𝗧 𝗨𝗣 𝗢𝗥 𝗥𝗘𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗧 𝗜𝗧.
#LUNC #TerraClassic #StatsBin #USTCView quoted post on X