3 Snapshots NEEDED for the People who tried rescuing LUNA | Before 1st/2nd Halt

A lot of people bought May 12 when the supply < 10 B spending thousands on the tokens. This supply should be account for in exchange holdings at that time, NOT the 6.5 trillion supply which occurred a day later. We ARE NOT the same group!


I believe that he DID have a plan, at that point of time it was conceivable that there might have been price support for Luna. That UST might have repegged. And that there would be sufficient community willpower to drive Luna Up.

But what I also believe is that he was out of his league, he didn’t know what truly was going on and that he was unaware the speed and tenacity of this death spiral could not be bailed out. Instead of posting anything, he should have immediately, done a circuit breaker as you would have in a bank run or stock market crash and halted the chain, and prevented more minting, injected liquidity and force a re-peg and SLOW DOWN minting. Because once they opened the flood gates, the whole thing shat itself. His original plan wouldn’t have stuck and he had to change course to ditch UST and save luna.

Because the problem you have said is that it was Do Kwon’s tweet which caused people to believe (myself included, that’s why i didn’t sell out) The cost to be borne by those spurred to buy the dip shouldn’t necessarily be on the shoulders of those who owned the original Luna chain. The only reparations he can make is to resign and let someone else take over. After all, what this has proven is that he’s not a genius businessman, just a smart coder. And that’s not what we need in a leader for a true ETH killer.

Having LFG and Terraform labs gave Terra immense manoeuvrability over the other chains during this nascent building period, I feel that removing them is actually a bad move. If anything, having this centralised authority had the ability to force chain halts when need be, which were not used. Imagine if we had an Elon Musk equivalent running Terra?

1 Like

If you bought at $15 at $1 or even at $0.1 you have lost 99.9999% in all case. So we are all in the same boat except for people who bought after the network was halted, that the guys who will get compensated, how does that makes sense. The issue being how to fairly compensante someone who bought at $15 vs someone who bought at $1 or $0.1, anyway that’s not in the plan it seems …


Jika pembeli antara tanggal 8 dan 12 dapat ditinggalkan oleh tim dan memberi mereka snapshot yang setara dengan sirkulasi 6,5T, mereka hanya debu. Luna akan kehilangan banyak orang yang telah begitu mendukung dan mengisi kantong mereka pada 8-12 Mei. mereka adalah orang-orang yang suportif dan percaya. bukan spekulan. jika Anda ingin membuat Coin Luna 2.0. keadilan dibutuhkan. proposal saat ini masih tidak adil bagi mereka yang membeli antara 8 hingga 12 Mei ketika sirkulasi pasokan masih di bawah 1B

Agree In this luna debacle many of us choose to believe that the luna team can save the project I used up almost all my assets between the 9th and the 12th but on the 13th it was worth 0 I have no money to support luna anymore even though It’s over we agreed to fork but the new distribution is asking us to compete with the 6.5T I’m confused I hope the team values ​​us thanks


I wholeheartedly agree to this. How is it fair if you bought it at 50c and someone else buys at 0.0000001 and we get compensated the same.


Well mate,
He’s changed the rules on a proposal that people have already voted on, he’s revaluing the value of a Luna token via % and timing which is dividing the community, I agree to a point that long time holders have a point but lets not forget many could have made massive profits if they used some common sense and not ruled by greed. My point is you could have sold at $90 per token but you didn’t so why should your compensation be worth any more than mine.


You read my mind dude.
Please Do Know i know you can do something .
The guy is right. We tried to rescue Luna :dog::upside_down_face:


Only by burning Luna, this project might stand a chance to recover. New fork, and holding in existing token holders for 2 yrs is merely holding us ransom with our own money invested. Do Kwon’s new proposal of the new fork has ulterior motives for his own personal gains while tkg the funds from investors to pay off his Tax debt of USD78.2mil owed to Korean govt

He seems to cover us in the first revival plan, he was appreciating us and then he kicked us out I don’t know why.

When people were selling and making it worse we bought and hold and we get nothing in return but people who sold and made the thing worse getting back.

Do fair thing and consider us in, we bought for the stupid tweet he was posting.
Why would you post thing like there was a recovery plan and told to stay strong and even go on mile and write Lunas come back something people will watch something like that.

Snapshot should be three or distribute people according to the price point they bought at.


Same for me, I bought at 29$, then 2$ then 0.02$
I lost 200 k$
I also held LPs on Astroport, same there, UST is now 5 cents :frowning:
I shouldn’t have doubled down till the end…
Lesson learned : don’t catch the falling knife, have a stop loss strategy (no doubling down the whole way), and don’t invest more than you can afford to lose (this time I lost all, and not sure if I could really afford it…).
Diversify portfolio and don’t touch it, don’t (re)concentrate all portfolio on one chain/one tech/one team
Crypto is a gamble, I lost :frowning:
Cheers to everyone, life is more important than money, so if you’re still alive, anything can happen !


That’s because none of us knew they were minting 6 trillion tokens. We bought at the time the market should have rebounded. And it did, it went to 2 billion from 100m market cap. Only problem is that it made 6T


I agree compensation should be fair but I don’t see your point, long term hodlers will get a snapshot before the attack so that’s fair to me. The only unfair part being after the attack the network was halted so we should have 2 different plan for this, before the halt (may 12) and after the halt (anywhere after that to now). Where do you see he amended the proposal to take the % value (supply?) and timing in account? I don’t see that in the current proposal, it would be a great news of course.


Agreed. The buyers between 8 and 13. should not be left with nothing. If it’s too hard for the team to figure out who bought on which day, use a later date for the pre-attack snapshot (May 13th, the hour before the supply reached maximum). Yes, some people will receive even more, but this is a better solution than leaving these people with nothing.

This has to be solved either based on exact time of purchase, or optimistically by moving the pre-attack date to the hour before supply maxed out - but it has to be solved. The team should bear the cost, not the buyers.


Why would he post something like this if he did not want to compensate who bought during 8 to 12 may period.

Because of the tweet many people jumped in believing it might come back.

First proposal seems to cover those people.

But the last proposal only benifitiing people who held before 7th May and people who bought after circulation went into trillions.

But what about the people who bought when supply was still 400M to 10B.

Why then don’t get anything?

Make it fair and distribute according to the circulations the bought at.

Look how supply changed suddenly from millions to trillions!


Yes we demand fair distribution


13 May too.

The price dumps a lot from 14 may, not 13 may (I bought 13 may for 5,4$ for example).


Let’s fight for our right new proposal should cover us. He covered us in the first proposal and then changed it.


Let’s do it!