<plowsof> "How much does koe earn for..." <- If ooo1234 would submit a CSS or Magic Grant Proposal for Bulletproofs++ then it would surely get funded. One issue is that I don't believe said protocols and the code have been peer reviewed. The author said they are working on submitting the paper to conferences, so hopefully that changes in the coming months.

<Siren[m]1> "so is there a monero payment..." <- Btcpayserver

2500

<plowsof> "nikg83 lol wat 2500 xmr..." <- wonder if its related to this: monero-project/monero-site #2013#issuecomment-1234523829

same timing as the last 2 comments

r4v3r23[m]: yes, seems to be the person who donated

selsta: will core use it to purchase the domain?

looks to me thats what the donation was for

no idea

interesting

yeah, the comment and the 2500 XMR donation are 3 minutes apart

and the github account was created just to make that comment

cleary for the domain then

has anyone had contact with the donor?

seems to be a throwaway acc

<r4v3r23[m]> "will core use it to purchase the..." <- I hope not

anyone have a link to the viewkeys of the current dev fund wallet?

<ofrnxmr[m]> "I hope not" <- its clearly for that

Inge:

r4v3r23[m]: Its in general fund. No reason we have to blow like 50% of the fund on a domain

ofrnxmr[m]: unless the reason it was donated was for that

Doesn't matter

Its not a ccs

im not saying buy the domain, but looks like thats what the donor wanted

General fund roadmap isnt ""buy domain"

Yeah, ^^ I agree

But I think the money could be better used right now.

I believe vik (Cake): would "hold" the domain until were in a better position to buy it. If he was to put on open market.. yeah, we should probably rush to get it.

I feel like we shouldn't get involved with domain names at all at that price range.

no matter if it gets on the open market or not

selsta: agreed, but its basically just been given to the project

otherwise the monero.org domain is next where we have to rush to get it before someone malicious buys it

spackle_xmr[m]: thanks

selsta: I agree.. even though the money was given to us, 400k for a domain is out if the question.. far better uses for that much needed money

let's wait for core

Well if someone messes with it, we can just DMCA it, right

Increase HackerOne rewards / bulletproofs++ (security audits aren't cheap) implement trustless zk proofs, fix anon network / p2p traffic in monero and cherry on top - one more payment processor

Or buy a domain

<plowsof> "Increase HackerOne rewards..." <- no ones arguing that these arent better uses for the money

Why didn't the donor just buy the domain

And donate it

Refund if he wants a domain

cryptogrampy[m]: prob doesnt want to dox himself

easier to leave logistics to core

What donor?

Did someone send us 50% of general fund?

<r4v3r23[m]> "wonder if its related to this..." <- monerobull:

The numbers, what do they mean

Transaction + amount?

Amount hidden with **** xD

But.. viewkeys

I guess they didn't want to flex THAT hard in the GitHub comments

> <@plowsof:matrix.org> Refund if he wants a domain

>

No refunds

Hm

If someone just blows 400k into the general fun like that, i would assume they also fund a lot of ccs proposals

If i were this guy, i might not donate anymore after the donation i made with very obvious intent to buy the domain was used for other things

I've read the whole github discussion and I haven't found anywhere that core agreed to buying it. So throwing the money at it was a bit too premature, it doesn't oblige core to anything.

CakeWallet even said "Anyway, I do not intend to sell now, but make the changes above you and others have asked for." monero-project/monero-site #2013#issuecomment-1213060469

this is only speculation anyways. if they want the donation to be used for a specific thing, they just need to talk to core and core can decide

there's not point in assuming core will buy it and the domain isn't for sale as far as we know

Yeah, it's not like they don't have the ability to clarify

The general fund does not have 300-400k usd to spend on bridging the #monero room to matrix waits

should leave a comment here monero-project/meta #549 maybe another anon donor chaimes in :)

chaimes -> chimes

<plowsof> "The general fund does not have 3..." <- I could probably just plug it into the discord bridge but i have never really used IRC before

<sech1> "I've read the whole github..." <- This.

<monerobull[m]> "If i were this guy, i might..." <- And this opens the door for legal issues

You cant donate and then write a script for them to follow.

Thats paying someone to do a specific duty.

Which raised huge red flags about where the money came from.

Core has to use the money however they initially would have, else it is pretty much money laundering lolz

luigi1111: re haveno ccs payout request

Considering they have to convert the money to pay 3rd party contractors using fiat, they they should be paid out as soon as the remaining value is enough to cover all costs. Under the condition that haveno proves they have liquidated the xmr and hold enough fiat to complete the project.

Last time around, they held the xmr while in profit, and liquidate while deep in the red

So.. step 1 - paying out doesnt fix step 2 - liquidating the xmr

"We would convert the entire amount to stablecoins to safeguard its fiat value and then convert them to xmr to pay the UI team (or maybe pay them directly with stablecoins). Feel free to ask further clarifications if needed."

Erciccione said this.

I dont agree with this.

Does the ui team want xmr of usd? They need to make up their mind

If the ui team wants xmr, then they should be making good on the original arrangement.

There is no guarantee of stablecoins either, and even less guarantee of fungibility

> <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> If the ui team wants xmr, then they should be making good on the original arrangement.

> There is no guarantee of stablecoins either, and even less guarantee of fungibility

Agree. They have been super sketch this entire process and straight up backed out on original promises. I’m willing to compromise on converting to stable but not willing to pay it all out at once to give them full control. This is a two way street. I’m ok with a third party holding DAI for them at the price they say is good if that’s what they prefer as a compromise.

> <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> You cant donate and then write a script for them to follow.... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…39bd5c60459d5a843b3f0dcfbb803b1ea47)

Its nice to have a big heart, but be real

In what world can you double someones capital, tell them what to do with it, and call that anything but trouble

There are no refunds, thats must how it is. There are circumstances (like accidental deposits) that might warrant a refund. Telling someone what to do is not

Core has 0 obligation to spend 50% of the fund on a domain list because someone else wanted their money to buy it

The argument wasnt that core doesnt have enough money.

The argument was that 400k for a domain is absolutely ridiculous for a decentralized project to yolo funds on when we cant even afford developers.

I said.. somewhere.. that if tf was 10x its size, maybe we could talk about throwing that much on a domain.

Imagine if every donator could tell gf exactly where to allocate those funds.

There's nothing decentralized about that. Thats just text book money laundering

Smart way:... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…d3d357759619421e89b6dc5f58819487f99)

<sech1> "I've read the whole github..." <- the entire point of the donation was because core *didnt* have the money to buy the domain name, and this anon shows up and basically says "here, you do now"

And they still dont have the money

never underestimate ones ideals for anothers money

Technically they had enough before, tecynically they have enough now.

Only an idiot spends half of their capital on an nft that isnt going anywhere anytime soon

ofrnxmr[m]: the tx is confirmed right?

Of course

kinghat[m]: right. getting greedy on a massive donation is really off putting

this isnt a random 2500 XMR that just dropped in GF

theres context

And?

That doesnt mean you can come to my wallet, donate some money and then tell me what to do with it

Thats not a donation

That a directive

And its not exactly all good from a legal standpoint

ofrnxmr[m]: "There is no way the general fund has 300k-400k to buy a domain name. "

For the same reason the person didnt buy the domain and transfer the domain, is the same reason a sale of 400k from this person who hid their finds to go around the backdoor to buy the domain. Aka money laundering

And it isnt like gf managers agent doxxed

if core someone said in the comments, "was this donation under the stipulation of purchasing monero.com," would you then uphold it?

core or someone*

No, you dont get to be a VC investor and dictate what the gf funds are allocated to

Otherwise the gf is just a 1 way trip to jail

<ofrnxmr[m]> "Its nice to have a big heart..." <- You are absolutely right, I'm not arguing with the facts. I'm just asking you to be a bit compassionate in your wording. If I sacrifice some of my time or money for a cause I believe in I at minimum expect not to be treated like shit.

> <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> Smart way:... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…2ff7af8c91d3b66cf0ff45a1f5aee3ae256)

You can ask before donating, not after donating where funds get allocated

Is this for Monero.org?

you act like it was owed to the gf. pretend it didnt exist if the domain purchase wasnt going to happen. youre in the same position as before.

chesterfield[m]: monero dot com

monero.org.com

buy all the domains

Wen cake.Monero.com

i do agree that core isnt bound to anything with the gf, but your point was that its stupid to spend half the gf on a domain. while that might be true, you equally dont get to tell core gf not to spend it on a domain.

wait we can have it all

just pump price

that person should start buying up all the coins with their coins.

Code improvements are temporary, a domain is forever

nioc: Someone locate Sminem right now

nioc: ***taps head

Just dedicate half to a domain name for if price goes up, use other half for general fund general things

Ez

Everyone wins

Core can spend 20k on adding number go up tech

What is the context for the donation?

chesterfield[m]: Domains arent forever

luigi1111: The context is anti cake wallet owning monero.com

Oh nvm

luigi1111: there was a github post with a comment at the same time the donation was made

sorry don't have the link

Fwiw the problems were resolved afaict

core speaketh

But too quietly

Whispereth*

just give it to jberman[m] and ooooooo

ooo

hes still recharging from his last battles

<kinghat[m]> "i do agree that core isnt..." <- exactly

nioc: +100

Walk softly and carry a big stick

<luigi1111> "Walk softly and carry a big..." <- don't walk to fast you may trip someone

<ofrnxmr[m]> "And its not exactly all good..." <- What's the 'legal standpoint' from point of view of receiving an untraceable donation to GF? If this donation can be back traced to a bad actor at some point through other means, this can cause problem for GF.. if thts what you meant!?

Ideally, a clearer communication from the donor for making a significant donation would do greater good than letting people speculate on the intent and converting that into altercation internally. I think GF should clarify a clear rule book & priority on how a donation will be spent. I haven't found such a writeup from General fund, so how they spend funds might look open ended to an outsider.

* What's the 'legal standpoint' from point of view of receiving an untraceable donation to GF? If this donation can be back traced to a bad actor at some point through other means, this can cause problem for GF.. if thts what you meant!?

Ideally, a clearer communication from the donor for making a significant donation would do greater good than letting people speculate on the intent and converting that into altercation internally. I think GF could clarify with a clearer rule book & priority on how a donation is spent. I haven't found such a writeup from General fund, so how they spend funds might look open ended to an outsider.

That is what I meant. Bad opsec to "donate" to a closed pr and then announce it 3 mins after, so it doesnt have to be a bad actor that made the donation

ah..didn't realize it was 3 minutes "after".. thought it was before donation was made.. but guess, won't matter much as to how GF would deal with it.

Making a donation isnt the part that raises the red flags and paints targets. Its giving money that was not requested and having it earmarked for a specific, regulated purpose.

The fact that it is obvious to _everyone_ here that the money has a purpose would imply were not the only ones that noticed

And, ive never seen a donation where I can donate with the intention of telling them what to do.

That an investor / VC funding / sharktank.

If you donate to GF, you are leaving the decisions to them. Can you put forward ideas? Of course. Should your donation be used for whatever you predecided? Thats not a donation

My comparison was, a ccs for this would have no red flags

Dropping 400k in someones tip jar and then telling them to buy a new lambo, or everyone expecting them to.. isnt how donations work. If the sender is a resident of xyz country, that could very well fall under money laundering

CCS = NP. Gf = VC funding without reporting it

The last thing we need is a reason for tornado cash to happen on monero

ofrnxmr[m]: All are fair points.

and CCS would be a better route should one want to 'exercise' their intent.

If ccs is funded = money has to go towards goal.

Id lose faith in GF if they made deciions like spending half of the capital on a dick measuring contest

Monero.com isnt in the hands of someone who is going to turn around and charge 5m down the road.

Its in the hand of someone who took it off the market when we couldnt afford to

Vik has already said that he'd be willing to sell it to the core team at any time.

Yo! I became lazy recently and cant search Intwrnet anymore. Can you suggest a hosting for a remote node that accepts payments in crypto? Does it even make a sense to host a remote node via the untrusted hosting provider, or is it as secure as using someone else's public node?

I'm talking about monero walletn remote nodes of course

An off topic question, bt since it revolves around GF. Is GF monitored as a multisig wallet or controlled by an single seed? Coz boating accidents can happen for mysterious reasons.

Single seed, I believe controlled by binaryFate

Someone should correct me if im wrong. I dont recall where I heard this

Hmm.. interesting. In the spirit of decentralization, and not tht it can occur, we do realize a single mishap can cause irreparable damage to GF as it is collection of trust from all participants. Perhaps, there are backups in place & I'm just extrapolating a non-issue.

It doesnt help that multisig was vulnerable and is still potentially

So I cant blame them if it is indeed not a multisig

Multisig might be a logistics nightmare also

"did you hear guys? moneros general fund wallet is held by ONE PERON. told you its a CENTRALIZED PROJECT"

We cant even renew our ssl certs on time

r4v3r23[m]: There's nothing really decentralized about gf.

> <@plowsof:matrix.org> Multisig might be a logistics nightmare also

>

Yes sure, tht could be. I'm just questioning what "mechanisms" do we have in place to protect what could potentially be/become the weakest link in a project. Things happen when we least expect it.

I think it's a fair question to ask.

Is this IRC have a telegram group?!

I thought that was well known. The community doesnt get to vote of gf spending last I checked. Its a core only thing

Core uses it to pay for backend stuff and help fill some ccs etc. But there would be no need for a transparency report if it was decentralized

afungible: IMHO, the GF isn't the weakest link in the project since it isn't very important for the project.

There are plenty of ways to fund monero. The general fund is describes on getmonero.org as... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…1f0f4bbeecc0c5f4e52da61559429f007dd)

Sure. My main question revolved around are the keys to GF safe, shld smthing uncalled for happen to the one behind the keys? Are there backups for other core members should that be necessary? If yes, then my question is answered. I am not questioning the transparency, I think they've been transparent enough.

I wouldnt imagine bf is the only one with access

But I also doubt they will expose how the seed has been distributed

I'm late to the party, but my two piconeros are that we should buy the domain with the donated money. The intent was clear. If the donor had done this through a CCS proposal or similar, we wouldn't be debating it.

The fact the donor put it in the general fund is just semantics in my eyes. The money was given with a purpose in mind, and I think that should be honored.

Ccs proposals arent unilaterally accepted

I don't think that really matters here, it's not like he gave $10k and is asking for another $390. His donation seems to cover the full cost.

A better analogy would have been if he'd said "Hey, here's a CCS proposal to but the domain. If you accept it, I'll fund the whole thing myself". That CCS proposal would obviously be accepted.

To buy*

BusyBoredom[m]: It wouldnt obviously vs accepted

Id personally advocate for, if youre going to double our funds to allocate it towards something progressive

400k to buy a domain isnt a 400k donation. Its just monero.com

And monero.com isnt worth 50% of our capital

A cririyxsl vuln can cost 400k

And we pay people 10k.

If course, they could have contacted bF in private and bought the domain without going to GF at all

I cant donate 20$ and then expect core to merge a pr because "thats what im paying for"

We merge CCS proposals that are inefficient all the time because the donors ultimately decide if it's worthwhile, not just Luigi. In this case the donor did things a little backwards, but the intent seems the same to me and I don't see why we should treat it any differently.

I agree that the optimal use of the money isn't to buy a domain, but I think the moral choice is pretty clear.

There is no reason to rush to buy monero.com

Plot twist: Luigi donated the money and he gets to decide what to spend it on anyway

Which is dangerous legal precedent ^

Somebody thought it was worth enough to drop $400k on it. Personally, I think it'd help with onboarding new users who may not find the current website so easily. So there's definitely good reasons to but it (although of course I do agree, I don't personally think it's worth $400k).

Monero.com directs users to getmonero.org via a banner

If it were free, wouldn't you want it to do a 308 permanent redirect?

jwinterm[m]: double plot twist: cake donated the xmr to buy it off themselves.

BusyBoredom[m]: Its not free. Its 400k

Thats the difference

Monero.com wasnt dropped in our lap, 400k was

And spending 400k on monero.com is retarded unless youre holding at least 10x that and can secure your network

I see what you're saying from a practical standpoint and I agree with it. From a moral standpoint though, I think we should follow through with what the donor obviously intended.

If gf was 10k and someone donated 400k, should we spend 400k on a domain?

Leaving us with 10k?

+ monero.com and good feels

Its a terrible decision.

We dont have enough money to buy Lambos just because someoen offered

Foundation first

Especially if vik is willing to squat monero.com for as long as necessary

> <@busyboredom:monero.social> I'm late to the party, but my two piconeros are that we should buy the domain with the donated money. The intent was clear. If the donor had done this through a CCS proposal or similar, we wouldn't be debating it.... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…b6159711409904def9d6a16803608e91f95)

^ much better said than what I spit out

> If gf was 10k and someone donated 400k, should we spend 400k on a domain?

Honestly, yeah I think that would be the right call. The donor messed up by donating to the GF instead of buying it himself, but I don't think it's right for us to take advantage of his mistake.

Alright I can get behind the potential legal issues, that would change my mind on this.

Id reluctantly return the funds. If the donor wasnt ok with putting it to better use and putting the domain purchase on that backburner, id question motives and prefer they go the ccs route.

Why can't GF offer to pay for the monero.com domain over a ten year period.

its funny to me that people can be so passionate about money that isnt theirs. its like saying opensourcerers are working on the wrong things.

Sure, returning the funds would be better in my eyes than using the money for something the donor didn't intend.

BusyBoredom[m]: I would ask the donor..

And ideally the donor, who has money, knows a bad deal when they see one

And or a mistake

Wrong way to go about it and if that money was available to monero, "wouldnt you be so kind as to let us use this to further the codebase?"

^ Probably the best solution, I like that.

And vik need to be involved in any of this combos

Imagine waking up to find out "im selling my website and rebranding today".

Thats now how the world works

Not*

Perhaps, in the spirit of it all.. I know some may not like this. Provide an open call to the donor to create a CCS if his/her intent was purchase of the domain (return the funds, n ask 'em to donate it correctly). Coz purchase of domain by donating to GF is likely a no-go (due to potential legal hoolahoops & GF cannot be requested/commanded to exercise an intent of an unknown (good or bad) actor).

Unless the doner wishes the community to decide on how to spend the GF funds, now that it has the extra funds required for the domain purchase.

*donor

<BusyBoredom[m]> "I see what you're saying from..." <- Who says the donor intended it for that purpose? The github comment is merely circumstantial

We can't know for sure unless the donor himself comes and provides proof of their transaction

Otherwise there's nothing we can we sure of

it is kind of an interesting theoretical thing to go awry - re: this donation

I have tried to pin down CCS/GF people as to what their legal organizational structure is in the past

and they're like, "we're just some bros holding a lot of money and deciding how to spend it"

more or less

so I guess if donor gets pissed their options are basically to directly sue some combination of luigi, bf, others

🤷‍♀️

Plot twist. vik (Cake): donated to GF so that Core can buy it back from him. Can be a good plot to a Monero movie.

Imagine someone donated that for whatever other reason, and because of a circumstantial github comment the money isn't treated the way GF states, ending up in a straight scam

Would make more sense for vik to gift it to monero, for positive pr. But thats not happening

We just can't make assumptions like that, no matter how likely they seem to us

Vik isnt as generous as this donorn

theres no profit in donating

And a 400k loss to write to explain to your company

s/write to//

<r4v3r23[m]> "theres no profit in donating" <- There can be if you donate to yourself to hide the source of your funds (to avoid paying taxes on them as an example)

The single donor with a purpose narrative USBA dangerous one

Ccs gf people don't like to be pinned down jwinterm

I know I tried

if your wife leaves you, it's probably because she is ccs gf person

I'll help 10individuals how to earn $30,000 in 72 hours from the crypto market. But you will pay me 10% commission when you receive your profit. if interested send me a direct message on WhatsApp by asking me (HOW) for more details on how to get started

‪+1 (559) 666‑3967‬

We found the donor ^

Banhammer:

Opened this up to find out we are still talking about spending unholy amounts of money on a domain that’s not even for sale. Cool. Cake Labs bought it fair and square and, quite frankly, given how pro-community that company is, I am perfectly happy with them owning the domain. Heck they didn’t have to but the banner up but did anyway. As far as I’m concerned they’re using it for a great purpose and keeping the domain

from malicious actors. Not that any of our opinions matter because again, they bought it fair and square. It’s theirs.

<tiny_voice1563[m> "Opened this up to find out we..." <- It is for sale. Cake said they’d sell it to the community if the community wants it

<aremor[m]> "It is for sale. Cake said they’d..." <- Its not "for sale"

Its being used in product

Production*

They said they would sell it. Period. It’s for sale

Not black and white

Unless they contradict themselves

Offering to sell it means they have given a price and are wiling to transfer the domain as soon as said price is met

ofrnxmr[m]: Obviously

And? Has cake said "come up with 2500xmr and its yours"? No

That isnt the offer on the table

ofrnxmr[m]: Did you read the issue? Yes they said this

$400k

The offer is to hold monero.com in good faith and be willing to sell it to core should core want to buy it at cost

Yes I read the issue, i also commented on the issue

ofrnxmr[m]: “At cost” is $400k. Where is the confusion?

At cost isnt 400k

If I buy a house for 20k and sell it to you at cost, its a fantasy to think I only paid 20k

<r4v3r23[m]> "theres no profit in donating" <- We donate regularly.

ofrnxmr[m]: It was either on this channel or on the issue where a core member stated that the total fees all added up to $400k

* donate regularly. So screw off.

<aremor[m]> "Did you read the issue? Yes they..." <- It is a conjecture.... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…621a59f51eb34ca30157033bd73880f8f58)

<r4v3r23[m]> "theres no profit in donating" <- We donate regularly. So screw off.

(That comment is not to the general community. It’s a reply to one person.)

aremor[m]: The original estimate was $316,000 and some change but fees were added

afungible: right. And nothing can force cake to sell. Not now or in the future. Especially not a hostile takeover

vik (Cake): still willing to sell at about $400k?

Call it 4million since its not in good faith

Come back when its a peacefully transition

aremor[m]: I think it’s silly for the GF to spend so much on a silly website. It does nothing for monero.

Funds could be used for research and accelerating monero development

But I’m open to talking to core team.

Silly domain i mean.

I can speak for myself, as a software engineer, and technologist for the past 25 years, even I find it confusing at times finding the official reference software for bitcoin and monero. The domains are convoluted. And having canonical domains for either project removes that confusion drastically.

It’s funny that no one wanted that domain when it was for sale for many many years.

Just be happy exodus doesnt own it

Or the fbi

vikCake[m]: Only speaking for myself again, I’m very new here; I didn’t know it was for sale

The official monero website as someone suggested should be monero.org or moneroproject.org

I think we take that $400k donation and try to buy monero.org

vikCake[m]: Technically true but we know in reality that a .com will always reign supreme

Wheres the fuss over the other domains

Monero.social etc

Yep.

Anyway, point is cake is willing to put it in the hands of monero-project

but to have to do it on the drop of a dime because of a surprise donor is bullshit business

xmrack[m]: Why would anyone go to this domain?

> <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> Anyway, point is cake is willing to put it in the hands of monero-project

> but to have to do it on the drop of a dime because of a surprise donor is bullshit business

It’s not a “have to” because there’s no law governing that. It’s still 100% in their control. Thing is, he seems to be willing.

And imo. one cannot force anyone to sell a domain they legally purchased. In all fairness, they did their part based on community's feedback recently. However, if Core wishes to, it's between them & Cake to come to an agreement about the domain purchase.

And afaik. they do regular contribution towards Monero CCS. So, I think we should give them the respect they deserve, if not more.

vikCake[m]: What about this?

^ xmrack:

I'd shoot myself if I saw my 300k donation spent on a f*cking domain

Where does it end? Will people be forced to give up any domain with the word monero ?

Spend 5% of it to get Haveno launched tomorrow or something

vikCake[m]: I see your logic, but as I said before, a .com is just the de facto domain the average human will go to. No other TLD is comparable

aremor[m]: Not for crypto

gonbatfire[m]: Not if that was your intended purpose

vikCake[m]: Explain where the “force” is

aremor[m]: Ok “suggestion” “pressure” from our community

Anyway, I’ve had a few glasses of wine. Remember kids.. never drink and text

vikCake[m]: I understand

vikCake[m]: would you be willing to allow GF to pay for the domain in installments over a medium (5-10 year) term?

midipoet: Why the desperate desire to want it now after so many years?

But yes I’m open to all

Business decisions arent made so vaguely

ThorChain le Serai even…. But the way XMR works someone would have to publish a CCS that they’re willing to work on and just hasn’t happened…

s/le/or/

vikCake[m]: I have no desperate desire personally, I am just wondering whether there is a deal that can be made

<gonbatfire[m]> "Spend 5% of it to get Haveno..." <- ThorChain or Serai even…. But the way XMR works someone would have to publish a CCS that they’re willing to work on and just hasn’t happened…

^ found a pic of vik trying to sell monero.com for 8billion

vik (Cake):

vikCake[m]: I think you’re being extremely gracious about this

No one of these domains are going to matter when we get banned from the clearnet LOL

s/No/None/, s/one//

And by the way, the core team is very satisfied with the redirect link we put at the top

gonbatfire: how often do have 400k to blow on an nft?! YOLO

vikCake[m]: But Monero is not centralized right…. Seems it should be a community conversation