1 out of 50 users want a fork

Where is the democracy here? Do Kwon’s new plan fails again to be inclusive of users feedback. This new one STILL doesn’t take into consideration the people who lost money attempting to buy the dip on the days following the attack to help save the project. Many of them, myself included, were simply trying to stop the coin from collapsing so people didn’t lose their life savings, not realizing the system was designed to be a failure from the start through massive dilution. Where is our bail out in this plan? Sounds like we not only have to eat that loss but we get a considerably smaller piece of the pie in the proposal. It’s bullshit.

Buy and burn.


Maybe should have done some research on it before yeeting in?

You weren’t trying to save the peg or anyones savings, you just tried to make a buck and lost.

Bye bye, hope you get nothing pal


“Many of them, myself included, were simply trying to stop the coin from collapsing so people didn’t lose their life savings”

As someone who bought the dip multiple times i can assure you that this is not why i did it, i can also assure you that this is not why you did it either lmao.


Better a fork. Not a useless Luna with especulators. I want my Terra ecosystem and the beautiful community.

1 Like




a fork is the only way

you know eth forked right?


If we do a fork, @dokwom you need to provide CLEAR analysis with concrete numbers as this proposal seems to complete destroy the ownership of tokens. I would suggest doing many examples so the community understands your proposal because they way it is written now it is very ambiguous.

For example, if someone holds 1,000,000 tokens now that they picked up in the early morning hours on May 12 with a circulating supply of 8 billion. They would have 0.0125% of the overall market cap (at the time of the snapshot). This means they should get 100 million x 0.0125% = 12500 new tokens in the fork. If another individual picks up 1,000,000 today May 16 they would have 0.00001538461% of the overall market cap of 6.5 Trillion tokens (current snapshot) meaning they should only get 100million x 0.00001538461% = 15.384 tokens. If on the other hand you don’t consider the snapshot marketcap at the time of the distributions and an individual wallet’s holdings as a fraction of the overall marketcap it will be completely unfair. You HAVE to consider the snapshot marketcap throughout the dilution with any distribution/forking mechanism otherwise it would be foolish.

The second point is you should raise the distribution from 10% to 20% at the snapshot (5/27) and decrease the pre-attack snapshot (5/7) 0 from 35% to 25% so there is more of balanced distribution. Otherwise, it is too biased towards to one group over the other and both groups faced very stressful circumstances. This will also alleviate a lot of the dissatisfaction from holders after the crash.


You are a speculator if you bought Luna. These people legit think they’re not speculators as well because they paid more for Luna lmao

1 Like

And this is wrong because? I fail to understand why trying to make some profit for the effort while at the same trying to save the system is somewhat wrong - in fact, the system was built to profit from arbitrage… hello?


transactional burns you twat.


Can someone give me an idea, if someone currently holds 1000 UST that they held since before the crash, how much $ will they be getting back for that 1000 UST?

1 out of 1000 even have a clue whats going on

I’m here more than a year using all the ecosystem, maybe I paid less than you. Not trying to become rich in a hacked situation.

If you want the Classic Luna it will be for you forever. Trade and stay in a destroyed system.

Who doesn’t want to make some profit?
You bought at $100 because you also wanted to make some profit, no?


Hahaha. Term “Speculator” only used for big whales. Are you thinking smallbag holders also speculators? :joy:

Where is the shred of common sense?
It is IMPOSSIBLE to reduce emissions to 1 billion. Because tens or hundreds of billions will remain in the wallets of users in anticipation of growth.

The only way to do this is to randomly burn coins. 99.9% of users in this case will lose their money forever. And the blockchain is not interested in who got 100 dollars and who got 0.00005 cents.

The problem is that they don’t see the 49 as a legitimate LUNAtic. Hence, any suggestions and opinions becomes moot in their ears.

How many falsehoods !!! Nobody bought the dip to help the project but to make a profit !!! It’s time to stop with these falsehoods !!! The foundation doesn’t have enough money to burn the Terra token, so the only solution is the fork. One last thing I would like to say: the polls concerning the fork are rubbish because they often vote for people who have no competence. Ok?

I bought at the time the market cap was about 450 million. That’s the only reason and hoping for a rise again. I had no idea they were minting more tokens


I have to say I don’t understand this at all, Luna has such strong fundamentals here as it’s moving back up, and yes it’s the same traders who got it to $100 in the first place speculating, so let them do their market making thing and increase the value and reduce supply steadily and healthily over time with transactional burns.

The value now is in Luna the brand, a new token will forever more be a symbol of failure whereas this can be the rising from the ashes story it deserves to be for the community.


Create traction on better proposals! I wrote one here: [Proposal] A Better Way Forward™ = TFL pays back $UST by burning excesses, NO FORK