The Terra Classic community is currently voting on a proposal to designate terra-classic.io as the official website while discontinuing the use of terra-classic.money. As the proposal progresses through governance, discussions within the community have intensified, evolving from routine feedback into a broader debate about decentralization, transparency, and long term strategy.
As a neutral Luna Classic news source, it is important to present perspectives from all sides to help community members make informed decisions. This article outlines key arguments raised by Dawid, the creator of terra-classic.money, which has been used as a primary landing page for Terra Classic.
Below is Dawid’s perspective, structured into clear numbered points to support easier review by community voters.
1. Centralization and single point of failure risks
1.1 Domain custody and ultimate control
Dawid argues that terra-classic.io is structurally centralized because domain ownership represents ultimate control over where users are routed. Control at the domain level creates a single point of failure for an ecosystem critical entry point.
1.2 Concentration of ecosystem influence
According to publicly observable information, the domain owner is also involved across multiple high impact areas within the Terra Classic ecosystem, including:
- Significant influence over official Terra Classic GitHub repositories
- Operation and deployment of the Astroport Classic interface
- Contributions to Market Module 2.0 development
- Involvement in other ecosystem tools that affect user access and information routing
Even if all participants act in good faith, Dawid believes stacking multiple critical control layers under one operator increases systemic risk and conflicts with decentralization goals.
1.3 Transparency request for voters
To properly evaluate risk, Dawid calls for disclosure of any additional infrastructure, tools, or assets controlled by the domain owner that materially intersect with user routing, ecosystem visibility, or economic outcomes.
2. Conflict of interest concerns
2.1 Maintainers and economic incentives
The contributor and maintainer group for terra-classic.io reportedly includes validators and service providers. If these contributors also hold merge or review authority, Dawid argues this creates incentive alignment risks.
2.2 Influence of a canonical website
An official website directly affects traffic, reputation, delegations, and downstream revenue. Governance decisions involving this surface require stronger safeguards against conflicts of interest.
3. Governance process issues
3.1 Material changes during discussion
Dawid highlights that the proposal’s core rationale and framing were substantially revised after discussion had already begun, before moving quickly into deposit and voting.
3.2 Shortened discussion period
The proposal advanced to voting within only a few days, despite common governance expectations that proposals receive adequate discussion time for review and rebuttal.
3.3 Proposer voting perception
While proposer voting is not prohibited, Dawid argues that voting in favor of one’s own proposal during a shortened discussion period reinforces the perception of a rushed process rather than consensus building.
4. Banner narrative and neutrality concerns
4.1 Context of the informational banner
The proposal rationale places emphasis on an informational banner on terra-classic.money that links to an Agora discussion and invites community support.
4.2 Industry standard practice
Dawid notes that such banners are common across open source and public goods ecosystems. As an example, Bitcoin.org openly displays a community funding banner without being considered non neutral.
4.3 Governance standard consistency
From this perspective, disqualifying a website based on the presence of an informational banner reflects subjective preference rather than a neutral governance standard. Dawid argues that standards should focus on operational governance, not optics.
5. Decentralization claims of terra-classic.io
5.1 Contribution access versus governance control
Allowing pull requests does not automatically equate to decentralization. Dawid emphasizes that true decentralization depends on:
- Who holds merge rights
- How approvals are granted
- How maintainers are appointed or removed
- Who controls domain and hosting credentials
- How disputes and incidents are handled
5.2 Current structural limitations
At present, domain custody remains centralized and the effective maintainer group appears limited. Without a formal governance framework, Dawid believes labeling the site as community owned may be overstated.
6. Missing information for informed voting
For a change affecting a canonical ecosystem destination, Dawid argues that the proposal should clearly publish:
- Domain and hosting custody details
- Maintainer and reviewer lists with merge authority
- Approval thresholds and governance policies
- Incident response and dispute resolution processes
- Conflict of interest disclosures
- Communication and migration plans for third party platforms
Without this information, voters are asked to approve assertions rather than a defined operational model.
7. User impact and ecosystem consistency risks
7.1 Asynchronous updates across platforms
Exchanges, wallets, aggregators, market data platforms, media outlets, and search engines update official links at different speeds. A change can result in months of inconsistent user experience.
7.2 Reputational considerations
Conflicting official links can confuse users and partners, which Dawid argues is particularly damaging for a network still rebuilding trust.
8. Strategic and branding considerations
8.1 Role of the official website
The official website serves as the primary onboarding and credibility surface for investors, builders, and institutions.
8.2 User experience and narrative clarity
According to Dawid, terra-classic.io functions as a resource hub but does not sufficiently address guided onboarding, narrative clarity, or institution grade presentation.
8.3 Alternative approach
terra-classic.money version two is being designed with multilingual support, integrated documentation, guided user journeys, and stronger brand positioning to support long term reputation recovery.
Conclusion
This article does not advocate for or against the proposal. Its purpose is to clearly present both perspective so the Terra Classic community can evaluate all viewpoints fairly and make informed governance decisions.
