Penny stocks do RS to raise money. After they split they sell new shares into the market. Thats what pushes the price back down. That would be like us doing a RS just to mint new coins. That is not the case.
Consolidation means loss to long term holders who bought before the crash, their amount will even reduce so more loss to them.
Hi, shouldn’t reducing of LUNC be done by buyback and burn? In my opinion its the most transparent way.
Reducing 10 lunc to 1 is not fair for people who bought before the crash.
For me, the way to restore whole LUNC blockchain is:
- restore USDC peg to 1 dollar (most important?)
- buyback LUNC and burn
- try to prove that second crash will not happen
- Im not familiar with blockchain etc, I dont know how to repeg the USDC, but Im sure that there are some people here with enough knowledge and will to give rational idea.
- same as above
- community must find a way to get some funds regularly and then buy and burn LUNC.
For all of these points, Im sure that there is no fast way. I know that many people bought 1 million of lunc and now want to see 1$ per Lunc, but this wont happen with using shortcuts etc…
1 Like
Is there any hope for people who bought before crash?
I mean first we have to burn 6.8 T supply, which is not possible in a lifetime.
Also the prices for which they have bought for pre crash aren’t coming back either .
I don’t have any data but it might be the case now that a vast majority of holders of Lunc volumes now are those who invested post crash.
What you are proposing is a redenomination. Polkadot did it to increase its supply. It basically moves the decimal point. When Polkadot did it, it was a 1:100 increase, their price rerated accordingly per coin, but within a week or so, the total value of my holdings increased by about 3x. I was a Polkadot holder at the time.
This proposed redenomination would affect everyone equally, not disproportionately, as the burn does now. I believe the smallest unit of a LUNC is 18 decimal places past 0 or 1e18 (0.000000000000000001) I believe the solution would be to code this redenomination to 19 decimal places or 1e19 (0.0000000000000000001). I’m not sure what the smallest unit is called, but for the sake of argument, let’s call it a moonbeam. The number of moonbeams you have would not change, but the placing of the decimal place would. If you have 1_000_000_000_000_000_000_000 moonbeams, which is 1,000 LUNC today, after redenomination, you would have 100 LUNC, and this would make the total supply of LUNC drop from 6.8T to 680B. The share of the network that you own will not change. If you own 1% of all the LUNC in existence, you will still own 1% of the LUNC in existence after the change. If you wanted, you could make the change to 1e20, and the supply would drop to 6.8B
This should be as simple as changing the code to reflect the new denomination. It’s a front-end change. At least, that’s what Polkadot said. Search Polkadot redenomination for more information.
I think a proposal should be drafted and put to the vote. Maybe one proposal to signal for or against the redenomination, and if it passes, then one to signal how much of a redenomination is wanted, e.g., 10:1 or 100:1.
3 Likes
O que estão esperando para lançar em votação.
E acho que essa divisão reversa seria só mesmo uma atualização na rede LUNC e nada mais.
my twitter @dadrulesok see pinned tweet of live space explaining consolidation / reverse split
The reason why the stock market is merging is to avoid de-listing the U.S. stock market. Then what can you get from the consolidation of face value in the coin market and the resulting labor and risk?
When deciding an issue, one must first identify the advantages and disadvantages. Does this proposal have any advantages to pursue, even with the risk is taken into consideration?
you were disappointed with CZ’s AMA.
Do you know about the recent Binance FUD incident? few billion dollars have been withdrawn from Binance.
What did you do to stop Binance FUD then? Answer that first, then whine that Binance’s CZ is not active in LUNC 1.2% burn.
During the Binance FUD crisis, I encouraged Agora to write Twitter to help Binance, but no one responded. Is it the essence of the LUNC community to call binance only when you need it and ignore it thoroughly when they are in crisis?
No matter how much Binance’s CZ tries to do SmartGiver’s behavior, his goodwill will be stopped someday if the other party is a thorough taker.
If you can’t be a smart giver, at least be the matcher.
2 Likes
There has to be demand for USTC in the first place. Also, unless the USTC is reduced to like 200 million (at current prices) a repeg is not possible. It is only at that level would there be some degree of sense in swapping LUNC for USTC.
1 Like
8 months later $LUNC has burnt Sweet F A .
Community cant even agree on a tax burn rate.
To expect the #LUNCcommunity to fathom the enormous complexities and considerations that need to be undertaken to be operational and burn massive supply will take many years - UNNECCESSARILY.
Nonsense. In equities it works ( not all the time) because there is a different mechanism behind but in crypto it makes absolutely no sense. If it makes you happy just imagine lunc price without a 0 or make script to hide a 0 every time you check the price on TW.
2 Likes
No to any reverse splits, that is stealing everyone’s LUNC coins. Horrible idea. NO with veto. Oh yeah LUNC can be $10 but you own like 3 coins. Stupid.
7 Likes
What happens with staking of LUNC and xTC rewards, how does this affect validators and also stakers, I don’t see that covered.
I strongly disagree with this. It’s a quick-fix attempt to a long-game play. LUNC needs a slow and steady approach to prove itself again. A bunch of band-aide solutions every other week is not helpful. Save yourself some $ and don’t post this as a proposal.
4 Likes
ERR
NO i dont want anyone messing with my possessions and I dont think anyone would allow that.
No
1 Like
I don’t think this is the right time. Coin inflation rate is too high. this may not work.
I guess only time will tell. But I mentioned I have not seen a reverse split be successful in the 20yrs I have been investing. Zaradars proposal is far more appealing than the reverse split and still aalows