But most people would be qualified to be in all three groups. Are you suggesting that people would only be allowed in one group? If not people in, say, the UST group who have a large LUNA interest would simply carry on arguing their LUNA case in the UST group. Everyone will be arguing for their own best interest in every group, just like they are now.
But nothing can be decided here; that’s the problem.
Exactly. And that’s the problem you’re trying to solve here, but you can’t because there is no structure. It’s decentralised. It’s impossible to make any decision here.
Right, but this whole thing is set up to avoid executive decisions being imposed. That’s anathema to decentralization. Even if TFL were to create the groups, I don’t think it would work for the reasons above.
We must not forget those pre attack bLuna holders. They were the backspine of the Anchor Protocol. I had all my Luna in bLuna on Anchor Protocol and was borrowing money.
The class division will not solve the problem, it will just increase it. And we all know what each class requires as you already detailed.
We need to work together in a common direction and it is stabilization, it is the system core, with it all those so called “classes” demands will be completed!
So we need one group with this objective!
And start it with draft like this:
Stabilization plan v1
Maximum Mass (Max Circulating Supply) definition to UST and Luna, the Luna is now clearly over its mass limit (black hole mass)
Minimum Mass (Min Circulating Supply) definition to UST and Luna, not the case now
Set a plan to restore the mass to half of its limit! Burn the supply, by a percentage of network fee for example.
After 3, the burn and mint can be restored, with a simple 1/log n basis algorithm, with stop at mass limits to protect everything from collapsing by minimum mass and black hole mass.
The solution is simple, just lets stop the greed and quick “magical” solutions, like rollbacks, life has no rollbacks!
Let’s sit down and work HARD together to make the best project be restored and stronger than ever!
A LUNA + UST holder fighting for LUNA bags on a UST forum should be shut down / timed out. LUNA concerns voiced in LUNA forums - and UST concerns in UST forums. Representatives of LUNA and UST forums discuss this as a steering meeting.
We should be realistic here. We can pick fully decentralised and everyone walks out with zero after throwing shit at each other for weeks or accept that this project was always centralised (mega reliant on TFL, Do Kwon and LFG backstop) and salvage some value.
Nobody here would refuse a 3bn bailout fund from TFL/LFG now because it goes against the principles of ‘decentralisation’.
I have no side in this conflict, but I fully support this.
Some people need to focus on fixing the Luna/ust mechanism (you can’t hope there is no attack. Most crypto markets rely on arbitrage and assume all parties are greedy. You have to assume if someone can attack a network and make profit, they will. And the network needs to be conceived to be resilient to it).
Developers should focus on how to implement, with code, the above mechanism.
Investors of various categories (UST and Luna holders, pre- and post-attack, and at different circulating supplies of Luna, and whether on Terra, Anchor, Cosmos, CEXes, etc.) should discuss a recovery plan for their investment. Pointing fingers at each other won’t accomplish anything.
My suggestion, to anyone reading this comment, is to stop writing on the forums (it’s ironic, because I’m writing a comment, but how else can I tell you? ). I know there are some great proposals out there. And they won’t be forgotten. Your heartbreaking story won’t be forgotten either. Your input on how to move forward will be listened to. Just not yet. Not until there is a framework to discuss these things. I support wlawyer fully.
Make this the top post.
Then, let’s create separate groups.
The first step inside each group should be categorizing everyone affected. If necessary, create subgroups (e.g. there’s people with ust on liquidity pools on cosmos, but also there’s liquidity pools on CEXes. Is there a need to split these into two subgroups? It will probably depend on whether they have different circumstances, and whether the data gathering for the recovery plan needs separate action -e.g. an exchange helping in the process).
Propose your situation and different solutions (e.g. maybe post attack, we should also consider the circulating supply at which the purchases occurred, e.g. 300 luna purchase at 3B tokens supply, vs. 3000 luna purchase at 30B tokens supply, or maybe consider directly the investment amount in $, instead of the tokens bought).
Vote for the best proposal/s and representative/s.
Have a meeting with other group’s representatives.
Each representative is there to make sure every one of their stakeholders’ voices are heard (that is, that no one is left out). Discuss the different proposals and how to integrate them into one. This process will require several iterations, but it is okay. That’s how real progress is made.
Go back to your group with the feedback from the meeting. Now the group (which could have sent a greedy proposal, e.g. ust group favoring ust holders) has some feedback (in an organized manner) from the other groups. Now each group should work on accommodating the other groups interests without hurting their own interests (or as little as possible). This is where good and creative ideas can improve the satisfaction of all groups in the next meeting.
Repeat. Have another meeting. When there seems to be an agreement, submit that proposal for voting for the entire community.
Just the 2 cents of someone whom doesn’t have an investment to be recovered, and thus is not emotionally invested in the process, but rather sees this as a very interesting experiment on how a collective governance may or may not work in the real work.
“Can’t punish ppl that bought the crash”
Why? There are economical and mathematical proofs. As soon as k(UST) > k(LUNA) where k was the respective market cap, it was purely gambling and reliant on a buyout to have any chance at becoming solvent.
It’s great that we have someone experienced to guide and go onwards from collapse. We also need mathematicians being rational at which/what categories to proportionate. I suggest you read this: classic-agora.terra.money/t/luna/11685 Buying at certain points in this crash was utterlly pointless. In fact, it only served as UST exit liquidity for those to get off the chain via the market module once the spread relaxed a bit before selling that monumental amount of LUNA on CEX or IBC/DEX.
Shutdown by whom? You haven’t said how the voting mechanism is going to be set up.
You’ve somehow got the idea that someone can just whip up a bit a code that is going to create order out of chaos by dividing everyone here in to neat groups.
The groups are going to go off in an orderly fashion and democratically set about getting to grips with the massive and intractable problems facing the project.
But again mr lawyer people should be reward for he’s expending exposure I bought at 1.30 dolars 58.000usdt Sou I get 45.000 units. How I will be reward the same that a guy that buy when 37 trillions of shares was printed and they expend 5 dolars and get millions of lunas ? The mainly focus should be how many lunas you have of how much money you lost for compensate. And a lot other who alrdy won money to erase from list .
It’s not rocket science - create new forums for each class. No code here - just old fashioned corralling people into focus groups.
It sure as hell isn’t going to solve everything but it is a step forward from having different voices with different interests in the same room.
Also (not you) but it feels like half the people here aren’t actually reading what I am saying when I say this is not a proposal to allocate economic interests.
This is the only way that will work in my opinion. To categorízate by money lost. Sou this way people who lost 50k cause Luna was 3b units now have 5 dolars. People who buy when Luna 37 trillion units now are on profit no need compensate. People who hold Luna from before crash event that bought at 80 dolars Luna will be also protected cause the money expend will categorize everyone. Not give adventage to any Luna holder ( me included ) and only compensate who lost money. Cause a lot of people was shorting or making profit no need for compensate.
Cat C is easy to calculate. Reserves, buffer from potential bailout (put a number on it, another formula, something). k(UST) > k(Luna), it’s game over. 1-2bn gap, ok maybe LFG mechanisms or an external third party could’ve work. When it’s over a certain amount, no chance, no way. That’s pure definition of gambling then hoping for a 5000x lambo. And again, with mathematical proofs, on-chain analysis, that price of LUNA can be determined. Below such price is moot and done, sorry but simple.
). I know there are some great proposals out there. And they won’t be forgotten. Your heartbreaking story won’t be forgotten either. Your input on how to move forward will be listened to. Just not yet. Not until there is a framework to discuss these things. I support wlawyer fully.