Ninja Node ⚡🥷🏼 | LUNCninja.com

My low target theory strengthens... Bullish factors: 🟢We have an unconfirmed breakout of the down trend. Bearish factors: 🔴Breakout is capped by support flipped to resistance. $LUNC has already proved that it is not dead. This is about to be the buying opportunity of a lifetime... Your last chance to load up at undervalued prices. After we hit the liquidity pocket, the real race starts. #LUNC #TerraClassic

The $LUNC roadmap is executing flawlessly: Golden Pocket bounce ✅ Rejection at $0.000075 🎯✅ The signs are favoured in a certain direction. You know what my view is 😼. What happens next... ?👇 #LUNC #TerraClassic

As expected, $LUNC is printing a local green candle. (Yes, I predicted this move too - sometimes I leave hints in my comment section 😉). Before emotion convinces you the bottom is in, look at the objective data: 📊 1️⃣ The Golden Pocket: Price is reacting exactly off the 0.618 - 0.65 Fib levels with a precise wick to 0.702. Standard technical behavior - local support creates local relief. 2️⃣ The Volume Profile: This bounce is on completely flat, average volume. A macro reversal requires a high-volume capitulation event. 3️⃣ The Retest Trap: Expecting relief to continue up toward the 0.5 Fib at $0.000075 area. This is where the next leg down could start. 4️⃣ The Destination: The high-probability target remains the $0.00005 - $0.00004 demand area. But could the 0.618 bottom be in? Only if the market breaks structure and prints a high-volume daily close back above $0.000085. Until then, my bias stays parked. Sitting on my hands and letting textbook market geometry execute🛡️😼 #LUNC #TerraClassic

Short term? Difficult to say. I'm waiting for 0.00005. Maybe a bounce to 0.000075 area first before hitting my low target.

#LUNCcommunity There's been some heated debates recently about certain validators showing a much higher rewards rate than other validators on Terra Station. According to those who know the chain well, a higher rewards rate shown on Terra Station does not mean that you will be receiving more rewards from that validator. This didn't stop those who seek higher rewards from redelegating to the validators showing higher rewards, however. The question is, did those who redelgated actually receive more rewards? To answer the question, I decided to conduct a comparison between a validator that shows a much higher rewards rate and a validator that shows the standard rewards rate. The test is as follows: - Stake 10,000,000 $LUNC to Community First LUNC validator (showing 3x more rewards) - Stake 10,000,000 $LUNC to Ninja Node validator (showing standard rewards) - Monitor rewards received from each validator over a few days. The comparison started today at 11:01 UTC. Here's some screenshots from the initial staking activity. Let's see what happens...

I have taken my time to decide on how to vote on #12033. I am well aware that some expect me to vote "no" and others expect me to vote "yes". I am also well aware that I won't please everybody, no matter how I vote, but I am not here to please people. After weighing the pros and cons, I have come to the conclusion that for me the pros outweigh the cons. I think that KYC is well suited to be added as an additional security measure. It is by no means an all-powerful weapon and it is also important to make clear that it does not replace other measures like reviews or makes those less important. It is a supplement. Some things that are worth noting, in my opinion, are: 1. KYC is not KYC Depending on where you are KYCed and for what purpose, the requirements are completely different. For basic minimal trading on some CEXes it is enough to provide a still image of your id's front and back. Sometimes in conjunction with a simple selfie. That, in my opinion, is quite easily tricked, as others already mentioned. But we are speaking about a process including personal live calls with additional proofs. Is it 100% fail-safe? I wish, but of course not. Nonetheless it is not useless. 2. But crypto is all about anonymity, it's against the ethos I honestly wonder, how many of all people saying that, were able to onboard to crypto or cash out to fiat without any kind of KYC. At least over here it is impossible unless you are trying to avoid following the rules and are looking for "grey sheeps" operating without proper legal ground. Also, KYC doesn't mean giving up anonymity. No one (hopefully) demands people to mandatory KYC towards the community or be doxxed. It is KYCing to an external unrelated party that is specialized in these things and complying to things like GDPR. 3. But #LUNC is open source and permissionless First of all, open source is not the same as permissionless. I said it earlier. Open source means that anyone is free to view, alter, use and distribute the code. It does *not* mean everyone can push to the core. But other open source projects do not require KYC. That is well true. But they have a known (mostly fully public) core team or even company being responsible for the project. This team decides on what is worth merging and what is rejected. These teams gatekeep the core, normally even do most (up to nearly all) coding work on the project. Third-party contributions exist, of course, but the core decides on its viability and value to the project. LUNC is different. While there is a "core", namely L1TF, it will no longer be the case that the core does most of the development. With other developers proposing PPJ-based work (like @Genuine__Labs or the devs wanting to do tax2gas) decided on by governance or people volunteering. At the same time, we do *not* have established structures like other projects have. You would say "let the community and valset review and approve". We do not have enough people in the set with a track record to do that, imho. 4. Proposal 12033 is gate keeping and putting the chain at risk Yes, you can argue proposal 12033 would be gate keeping and blocking people from contributing and you can read @frag_dude post on his reasons. This point shall be addresses with a direct follow-up proposal as it was announced. While you could argue that you don't want to vote on 12033 relying on a follow-up passing, the arguments against the proposal mostly aren't even considering such a thing but simply referring to KYC as something evil and non-beneficial per se. I do not share that view. 5. Accountability is worth nothing (see Risk Harbour) Regarding this, I have to say that it is about having/giving the *option*. Of course it is up to either individuals or groups pursuing it. That still doesn't mean it's pointless. 6. Next step is validator KYC I read these discussions. And in my opinion that is nonsense. This part of the chain really is permissionless (despite the fact delegators decide on if you get to the active set). 7. KYC is all we need No, it is not. It is not allmighty and not the only point of confidence. We still need established review structures and DYOR processes. Still it is a form of risk mitigation, globally and personally. 8. "Code is law" I truly dislike this sentence. It is kind of a always-fitting argument, which can be used how you see it fit. I could say "all Governance" decsisons is defined by the law of code as the gov module was written to pass or reject based on VP votes. I could say if you lose funds through a hack, you have no right claiming it back as the code was defined to allow that. Not what you meant with "code is law"? Exactly my point. Personal definitions and interpretations. 9. The vote was rigged (no matter the outcome) Refer to 8. No, really. There was some stupid (yes, *stupid*) person obviously creating a script to fund ~2000 new wallets on chain with 40 LUNC each and then voting with 0 VP. It's ridiculous. In my opinion this was aimed to trick the @ValidatorInfo page which considered all votes at that time (this has been fixed already) as part of the counter. To whoever did that with whatever intentions: Grow up. This is only something more that can and will be used by both sides as a political statement ("It was created to rig the vote towards yes" or "It was done to make it look like cheating and discrediting the yes"), so whatever side you believe in: You fucked up. Cheers.

Commenced some tests for the $LUNC #whitelisting code on a local testnet. All tested cases worked as intended (taxed vs. tax-free). Review will surely take a while as it's quite a bit of code. Then testing on rebel-2 testnet will also need to take place, among other things to ensure that Binance whitelisting is not affected in any way.