NEW Treasury parameter update

Hello everyone. I´m writing this proposal with the hope that community sees some sensible thinking in it and decide to go forward to make it a governance proposal for us to vote.
I consider Terraport as a machine and like all machines, it has to be calibrated. We recieved a brand new machine that can produce wealth for investors and it´s already running, but there are factors that we have to take under consideration, as the machine works in an enviorment that is in constant change and development but also investors have their own agendas and time and plans for their assets, we might have to calibrate after some months of studying how it performed, make some adjustments and make another test, so in time we´re going to know how market reacts, how enviorment reacts, how investors react and how our machine can perform in different scenarios. We already know that it could be brought back to life after a hack, and that shows tremendous strength! But that´s just part of it.

The last vote we had was about parameters of the Treasury contract. I copied the text of the discussion forum of that topic so we can remember how it was proposed by team to be and we accepted:

As we can see, the team intended to persue the stability of the ecosystem and thought of a way of deflate Terra more than Lunc.

What I think about this scenario that we have and what we can we do to sort things out without flooding the market to cash some money for marketing or other uses, is that the the Terra token weekly burns set at 30% is, from my POV either too low or too high.

My proposal/s for a parameter change is/are as follow:

*Option A

  • We change that 30% for a higher burn rate and start to deflate more so we can absorb some of the offer that´s going to be released on the market when vesting ends. What is the ideal rate? Nobody knows. I guess we have to try parameter change and see how it goes. Where do we take those points? I thin we could take from “provider ratio” since all investors are invited to provide liquidity to the platform to make our pools more deep. Also projects can make their own pools deeper. We may low this ratio and expect that we deflate in a higher ratio that starts to drive price up or at least makes it more stable or subtle uptrend.

*Option B

  • We cut some Terra burn points (a third would be enough to try). The last burn of Terra was this saturday and we burned this week 67,5k Terra for a market value of $2025. This is absolutely great, but we have only accumulated 7k in community pool by now (in Lunc) and we have a marketing budget in Terra that could really hurt the price if we swap some. So, Option B would be: take a third of what Terra burning ratio and make 10% to be allocated in USDT for further use by marketing team with a weekly budget to spend in some stuff. That could be for example:
    -Paying for a designer to make the Terraport page more appealing, futuristic, new and more impressive design that could be more attractive.
    -Paying for X to add some specific tweets of the offitial account or Rocket´s.
    -Paying some crypto journals to write about Terraport or show promotional banners of us.
    -Paying for a community manager to make the offitial X account to be more active spending some weekly time in creating interesting posts about the whole Terraport ecosystem. That could also be educational content about DeFi and whole kind of catchy content for new investors to feel atracted to us.
    -Buyback and burn some of the token projects that are listed in our DEX so we start to collaborate with them and their communities in a way that all will love. We can do a lottery or competence every week to see which community wins the buyback from Terraport. This could be absolutely killer idea that gains lots of interaction. For example if we reach to 500 likes or shares in a X post we´ll buyback GRDX or CREMAT or FRG or other and burn it. Their communities and leaders will send their followers to interact in our socials, making more notorious to the X algo and of course, Certik stats of our socials.

*Option C

  • We cut some of that Terra Burn (10%) and provider ratio funds (5%) to fund a new specific pool: Lunc/Ustc pool. We start to allocate funds fot it so it gets deeper and deeper over time. Our main competitor being Terraswap at this time, with a 76k deep pool, we should be in the position to overcome them and capture that market of swappers that take Ustc or Lunc pumps as an oportunity to make some profits and of course, a deeper pool would be more attractive for whales. If a whale needs to make a swap from USTC to LUNC or back to USTC from LUNC, the whale is probably going to choose the deeper pool available. We´re hearing rumors that Astroport could be back so the competence in the DEX on-chain is going to be harder. I think we can earn that market before it´s harder or more difficult to get it. This option can perfectly go with a LUNC/USDC pool, making it the most appealing of all chain.

So, the parameters would be changed to:

Option A:
“native_token”: “uluna”
“native_token_ratio”: 2
“cw20_token_ratio”: 45
“staking_pool_ratio”: 8
“community_pool_ratio”: 5
“security_ratio”: 10
“provider_ratio”: 30

Option B
“native_token”: “uluna”
“native_token_ratio”: 2
“cw20_token_ratio”: 20
“staking_pool_ratio”: 8
“community_pool_ratio”: 5
“security_ratio”: 10
“provider_ratio”: 45

Option C
“native_token”: “uluna”
“native_token_ratio”: 2
“cw20_token_ratio”: 20
“staking_pool_ratio”: 8
“community_pool_ratio”: 5
“security_ratio”: 10
“provider_ratio”: 40

(or lunc_usdc_pool_ratio: 15)

I trust this community will find this ideas interesting for discussion or have a good motive to comment, discuss, propose other parameters if they think mine don´t fit to project. If you think of other ideas that could be be valuable for option B, they´re welcome. I just named some that I thought of but it´s not a taxative list.

Thanks for your time and consider interact so we can move forward if there´s communitiy will.

Pablo Britos.


All of these options will not have any significant effect, there is hardly any money to make any real change.

The burn rate is no where near the released Tokens everyweek, and there are millions of Tokens to be released, there is no real solution offered here to be prepared for this seismic event!

You mentioned the competition with Terraport and it is a very important element, because when your fees at 2%, no trader is encouraged to use this platform when all CEXs run at less than 0.2%.

A better website design is something critical and it has to be done, but this is not the real solution to the financial predicament either!

The answer is to attract a significant number of investors, they have to see the worthiness of this project and they have to see the viability of profit making in the short/medium/long term.

The best solution you could seek with the best expectations is to continue the CEX listing aggressively - this will do all the required marketing and visibility, at much better and stronger tune than MEXC. Also, the Total Supply will need to be cut down sizeably to make the long term investment really tempting, these have been suggested before and so far they are the best bet you could possibly have as far as can be seen.

Well thanks M Gee for your imput. I´m not discussing CEX listing here, but other ideas. The further CEX listing is in other topics and can be discussed there. I´m glad to see that you see almost zero value in them and, as I expected, you would know exactly what has to be done. Well, let´s see what others think! About your ideas, I hope they can be discussed in the forum too and maybe, be implemented. Have a good day!

About competition and high fees, you should know that deeper pools are more attractive than lower fees. Whales might be choosing to pay higher fees and less price slippage. So the fees can be neutralized by higher liquidity pools. Cheers!

Still the point is these are no answers to the real issue.

There is not enough fund for any deep pools or funds to make anything work. Nice suggestions but their time will come when the revenue becomes big enough and healthy enough.

Your focus can be in the direction of attracting capital, that is the real answer!

Your discussion here is just the same as TG, you do not really expect new/thoughtful people to suddenly appear here, do you?

Proposal B would be my choice

1 Like

Excellent :+1:
Plan B looks more interesting.

Let’s go for B.

1 Like

This is a tg message of LesStore user that agreed with me to copy it here since he couldn’t write in forum.
No editing done.

LesStore msg:

To change something in the treasury settings, you need to understand the needs of the team. When I said that the team had no money, the @AleNeverDMfirst administrator told me, “What makes you think that the team has no money?”, it was a couple of weeks ago. If necessary, I will find this message. Thus, the needs of the team have not been determined at the moment. Secondly, your offer says, “some money for marketing or other purposes.” This suggests that the purpose of the allocation of funds is not clearly defined. Thirdly, up to this point, I had not seen a professional approach to marketing, even in cases that the team could do for free and independently, such as weekly process alerts, answering community questions, and so on. Therefore, I doubt the competence of the team in these matters. So here’s what we have.

  1. The team does not need additional funding (or it has not been announced)
  2. There is no precise marketing plan and no clear funding goal.
  3. The contractor does not have the competence to implement the marketing plan.
    Based on the arguments that I outlined above, I suggest that before putting to the vote, we work out in more detail each item I have voiced, taking into account the availability of the marketing budget described in the project documentation.
1 Like

Proposal B is extremely interesting and is one of the things that is needed to $Terra and that can give the right value it deserves.

1 Like

My answer to this issues is
New collected funds are allocated to marketing or other uses (funding pools as option C says) or other ideas that might come up with discussion.

  1. Marketing money is available but it is in Terra, so using that implies selling it in market and if there’s no sufficient demand, price will dump for sure (excessive offer).

  2. For any marketing process we need a budget. I suggest we create that budget and assign it to marketing purpose weekly, so we can see immediate effects. Even paying in X for promoting some tweet or paying a crypto media for publishing an article would totally be better than just waiting.

  3. Professional community or press managers can be contracted to make a marketing plan for the project or directly to manage the marketing if a budget is available.

Remember the idea is short term engagement and put marketing to work. Many other things can be done while we advance. But we don’t want to sleep on this so we can get some results soon.

If development time is ready… Option B.

1 Like

Proposal B is looking great. The only thing I don’t support in it is the aspect of Terraport burning other community token. Terraport has already contributed a lot to other projects, they list their token for free. And there is non of this other token that has hyperinflation like Terra. The buyback and burning should be focus on Terra token alone.

1 Like

Thanks for your answer ZOE, that idea is for marketing puproses only. To get more interaction and transactions from that community token and therefor, more fees for Terraport. Is publicity, not a commitment with burning. But I understand, that it could be better use of that money, absolutely.

A blend of Plan A and Plan B could be the way to go. We can ramp up Terra burn while identifying areas where we can reduce resources to allocate them towards marketing efforts. It’s like hitting two birds with one stone, and it seems like the optimal choice A+B

1 Like

I guess it could work if we use a parameter change of the “provider ratio” to 30 and then give +5 to “cw20 token ratio” for more terra burning and +10 to new weekly marketing budget.

I see thist as a cool approach too.

Any thoughts?


For how much

It’s about me option B IS THE BEST ever

1 Like

Good morning, for me option B is very good.


I believe this is a well drafted topic.

I would like to see a final proposal with a combination of A&B perhaps laying out specific goal times lines and projected costs.

Great job pablo

1 Like

I also think B is good.

1 Like

Thank you for this proposal discussion. Taking ownership of Terraports governance is a very important step by the community.
My personal view is that identifying the true needs of the team, and of the users and community is really important before determining the optimum setting for fees, or dispersal of them.
Just because the team maybe does not appear to be doing something does not mean that we are not paddling like mad under the surface. Aspects that can massively impact the success of Terraport include how Terraport and TerraCVita are received by other teams within TerraClassic community and wider afield and how we interact with them. An example being how well we get on with TFL, and actions we have been taking to expedite getting Enterprise Protocol on chain to make it a more attractive building environment for developers, and working with TFL and other providers to enhance accessibility to tokens on Terraport etc, and much, much more. We are by far the busiest team on TerraClassic.
I fully agree that a massive barrier to trading on Terraport is the emergency increase in fees as part of the plans to compensate those that had funds stolen in the hack. Terraport has sacrificed growth, for attempts to compensate users. The largest losers and investors in Terraport have arguably been the development team. It is sometimes a more effective strategy to wipe off a loss and restart with a clean sheet to facilitate a stronger recovery, this the team would likely have preferred. However the team understands that some users were massively affected by the hack.
By having competitive fees this will promote trading and arbitraging which in turn generates more volume. Volume is the $TERRA owners friend.
I think there are some good points raised regards incentivizing developers, and it is an interesting thought to buy back and burn tokens other than $TERRA and $LUNC traded on the exchange.

1 Like