The Terra (LUNA) ecosystem “Revival Plan 2,” the latest revival plan proposed by the Terraform Labs founder and CEO Do Kwon that was put to vote last week, is nearing its deadline and is set to be confirmed.
By Tuesday morning (UTC time), 66.33% of participants have voted in the support of the proposal, 20.83% have abstained from voting, 0.36% have voted “no,” while 12.48% have voted “no with veto,” which suggests they strongly disagree.
Notably, the votes came from 76.41% of all validators, with fewer than 24% of the remaining validators having less than one day to put their vote.
The proposal has a quorum of 40%, which is the minimum number of validators needed to participate in the voting. Moreover, the pass threshold is 50% while the veto threshold is 33.4%.
Therefore, in its current phase, the proposal is set to pass. And even if all the remaining 23.59% of validators who haven’t participated yet vote “no with veto,” they would not be able to reach the required veto threshold.
While the proposal is slated to pass, there is still some confusion in the community about what would really happen to the network.
A number of community members are referring to the proposal as a “hard fork.” However, in a recent Twitter thread, the official account of Terra clarified that the proposal aims to create a new chain.
“Recently, a few community members (including some from [Terraform Labs]) have referred to the proposed new blockchain in [Proposal] 1623 as a “fork” as opposed to a genesis chain,” Terra said. “The revival plan is not proposing a “fork” of the existing chain, but rather the creation of a new one.”
In crypto, a fork refers to a major upgrade in a blockchain protocol that creates two blockchains, one that keeps the previous protocol and one that follows a new version. Notably, the new chain would still share its entire history with the original chain.
However, since “Terra 2.0” would not share its history with the current Terra chain, it would theoretically not be a fork of the original chain.
It is worth noting that the confusion is largely justified since Do Kwon himself used the word “fork” in his initial draft. He has since removed the word “fork” from the proposal during an amendment.