The LUNC community has received a proposal from Genuine Labs, a group of experienced developers who aim to contribute to the Terra Classic ecosystem, something that could help revive the USTC and LUNC tokens. What The Latest LUNC Proposal Is About According to the proposal titled ‘Genuine Labs Terra Classic Development Proposal,’ the developers who boast extensive experience in Cosmos stacks aim to work with L1 teams to improve the IBC Hooks and Packet Forward Middleware (PFM) features. They will also enhance the “end-to-end testing and interchain testing for the fee tax charging mechanism.” These plans, if implemented , apparently come with a lot of benefits for the Terra Classic ecosystem. For one, the IBC Hooks is said to be capable of enhancing liquidity and cross-chain DeFi applications. IBC-hook token transfers will also help facilitate direct dApp interaction. Meanwhile, the PFM will enable multi-hop transfers and robust interchain applications. Improving and integrating testing mechanisms also comes with its benefits. This will ensure that the tax mechanism is efficient and reliable and developers will be able to simulate real-world scenarios for thorough testing. Lastly, implementing this will also help accelerate development in the Terra Classic ecosystem . If the proposal gets approved, Genuine Labs will carry out these plans in two phases. The developers also mentioned that implementation will last for for six weeks and will cost $16,000. So far, most validators seem to be in support of the proposal, as 57.32% of the total votes cast have voted in support of it. The quorum is, however, yet to be met as just over 8% of those meant to vote have actually voted. Voting for the proposal will end on December 30. Therefore, there is still enough time for the proposal to scale through. Update On The Plan To Burn 800 Million USTC Bitcoinist had previously reported the LUNC community’s proposal to burn 800 million USTC from the Luna Classic treasury. Voting on the proposal had begun, and then, it looked more likely than not that the proposal was going to scale through. However, things have taken a drastic turn since then. Data from the voting forum shows that more validators have voted against the proposal since then. In fact, some of these validators have gone as far as voting against the proposal with their veto power. This is significant as the veto votes currently stand at 24.55% of the total votes cast so far, and the veto threshold is 33.40%. Validators seem to be against this move due to the legal repercussions. This proposal was said to have legally absolved them, but they might still not think so and are choosing to be cautious. Voting ends on December 27, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out.