You have nothing to decide. Luna team will be sued like crazy and your new project will simply evaporate again. Luna can’t just do whatever they want. The SEC and Binance will protect CEX investors.
3 Likes
If the people who bought at .0000005 get 10% of their money back in the form of New Luna tokens and the people who held before the depeg attack at 80 get 10% of their money back in the form of New Luna tokens how is that not more fair to those who got in later? Everyone will be losing money and maybe it’s better or worse than my numbers depending on the market, but how is it fair for the legacy holders to get that diluted? That makes no sense at all. Then the guys who bought in a .0000005 are basically stealing the legacy holders’ equity. Instead of the bottom buyers making a million dollars and the legacy holder losing a million, both investors lose half or 90% or whatever percent of what they invested. The legacy holders will still lose a lot more but it won’t be nearly as obscene and grotesque. It’ll be like if Terra crashed from $80 to $8 instead of from $80 to $.0000005. Much easier to recover from if it’s held again and it succeeds. And in the same way the bottom buyers will end up making tens of thousands instead of tens of millions if they hold and it goes up. It’s just adjusting the proportions of the losses and gains to make them more equitable.
The only problem with buy back is the math doesn’t work. There isn’t enough money in the world to buy back 9 trillion Lunas. Literally. And the more you buy back the higher the price goes so the more it costs to buy back. I wish it could work. If there was any way it might work it’d be worth a try, but all realists see it’s just not possible.
All holders and investors, please sign this campaign and spread it on Twitter and everywhere…
Of course it is fair. Legacy holders were invested in a bad designed protocol and therefore after its failure you lose. Luna doesn’t need a fork. Even Ethereum’s fork was questionable, but OK, there was 1 thief that stole lots of ETH and only that specific person was targetted. But this proposal of Kwon is targeting people that didn’t do wrong. They were just investors or traders or speculators that saw a good entry point. If you want to fork, the first thing that you need to do is halt the blockchain that you want to fork and stop trading on exchanges. Then you can fork. But what you can’t do is just pretend that all the transactions after the loss of the 1$ peg just didn’t happen and screw everyone that bought afterwards.
By the way, I didn’t buy for 20$ at 0.000005$. I was burned hard as well. I bought for 17 ETH the day before Luna printed trillions of Luna.
The only good solution that can ressurect Luna from the ashes is to buy back trillions with network fees and money from the Luna team or outside investors. Most of the people that bought in at cheap prices will eventually sell their Luna if they do a 5x or 10x. As you pointed out, these people are not real investors, just speculators. Then burn those coins again. That’s a solution that is good for everyone, also for you. The best part of it all is that there are people like me, that will stay in Luna. This is how you make from a bad situation a good situation. Dealing with the crash in a respectable and honorable way, respecting each and everyone that bought Luna will increase the Luna community in the long run.
3 Likes
It is ridiculous to call investors those who, like a rat, fled from the ship, gnawing new holes in it and taking away grain reserves.
Or someone’s 1% deposit in calm is more important than my 10% in a storm?
I am amazed at the selfishness and stupidity of people.
1 Like
Do you think the one who sails on a ship in calm is better than the one who saves him in a storm when everyone scatters?
1 Like
is who would have saved those who left the ship? because I miss the point here but if no one had sold we would not be in this situation or am I wrong?
2 Likes
Great minds think alike.
Well I like Do Kwan’s fork plan. Basically what it comes down to is just different priorities and that depends on whether you’re a legacy holder or a new one. You’re honest enough to admit that the legacy holders will lose out so much more, are basically totally screwed, with the burn program compared to being much better off with the fork so it’s simple enough decision for most people. If you got in at under a dollar after the attack obviously you’re for the burn. If you were in before the crash particularly if you were staked then the burn program makes no sense unless there is, as I’ve seen suggested, a tax on transactions to compensate legacy holders, and the numbers would have to be pretty impressive to make up for the losses. Without that, there’s no reason at all for a legacy holder, and that includes many big whales and venture capitalists and founders, to have any desire to “feel the burn”. And the just buy now to dollar cost average could well be just throwing good many after bad if the whole thing never comes back whereas the fork requires offers potential compensation with no additional risk.
All those people that fled were invested in a bad designed protocol. It means that the coins they bought were heavily overpriced aka they did a terrible investment. The real value of this coin is reflected in its current price. There is literally no reason for a fork here. Everything should stay as it is. If the Luna Team wants to not lose its reputation, they better buy back trillions of coins with fees and other money then find and then burn them.
1 Like
It doesn’t matter what you like. In investing and finances what matters is fairness. You invested in garbage. The whole protocol collapsed so you were holding a heavily overpriced coin. It’s real value is its current value. So everyone buying now, is buying at its fair price. It is you who bought an overpriced shitcoin so now you carry the consequences for it.
1 Like
CZ working harder than luna team. lol
3 Likes
Yes, the asset was heavily overbought.
But not directly on so much)
Who sold on the fall is to blame himself.
From the rest, you can shake out coins in the usual way, with long volatility, dumps, and so on. Only with connection to exchanges of robots.
But this is a very long time and still billions of almost free coins will remain on hand.
Because many are only looking for how to get rich with minimal risk.
This path will definitely be different.
Yes, but still no fork is needed. The current price is Luna’s real value. The attack exposed that their protocol was completely flawed and it’s 100$ price was wayyyyyy tooo much. All these Luna holders are now complaining about unfairness, but there is nothing unfair. They bought an expensive shitcoin. When you do a bad investment, you take responsibility for your losses instead of trying to steal from others to cover those losses.
2 Likes
This! Very sad actually. Meanwhile do Kwon trying to make a fork and increase the scrutiny from law enforcement and regulators. He goes forward with the fork and he’s going to jail likely and will kill Terra and everything they built so far. No one will list the fork and will get absolutely no support from the ct community
2 Likes
Fork can work, and has worked before.
Look at what Ethereum and ETC did in 2016.
Ethereum is a fork from original Ethereum Classic.
If the community view the forked chain as the primary chain, this chain will carry the most value forward.
The current $LUNA and $UST can be $LUNA-Classic and $UST-Classic.
New $LUNA2 and $UST2 can be forked, but will need better economics. E.g. new $UST2 cannot be issued with same 1:1 ratio, but instead will need to be issued at a discount.
The ecosystem won’t work with $18B outstanding $UST.
1 Like
Yes, as far as the coin itself is concerned, it would be fair to simply burn the coins, buying off the excess, until they are next to nothing.
Who bought for how much is not so important, although many are offended by the huge losses)
Thank you for pushing another argument in my favor)
I have a couple of coins in my portfolio that are worth nothing at all) The entire portfolio is in a drawdown of more than 50%
And some coins fell by 80 or even 98% … so now I have to throw myself at those who are buying them now and insist that I am a good investor, but they are bad speculators?))
That was a completely different situation. It has been explained in detail already
1 Like
For those who think the opinions of people who favor the fork and loathe the burn are meaningless, apparently Do Kwan doesn’t agree. What we little people think may not matter but what he thinks probably does. I can never agree with the burn if it’s juts a legacy holder burn. Never. But I appreciate other people who stand to make a lot of money right now and would in fact lose a lot with the fork won’t agree. When you want to understand the motivations of people for what they do and don’t support, it’s simple enough. Always follow the money.
Appreciate the honesty though from some of the commenters who are frank enough to admit that no legacy holder or anyone who is still staked since before the attack should support the burn option unless they are willing to lose essentially their entire investment. All of those people should support the fork.
I see some efforts at a burn proposal that try to compensate the legacy holders. But if they are like the one you’re proposing, only the people who bought after the attack should support them.
As far as it being a bad coin, if the only weakness was a sophisticated, well financed, malicious, multi-pronged attack that required hundreds of millions of dollars to implement, then that’s something even worse than a hack in terms of evil and damage done and if there is any possible way an undo is possible, that’s what should happen. If it’s not the same as Etherium, no legacy holder should care. It’s close enough. In the ways it’s different, so what? Break new ground and make history as we eat our losses with this magic fork instead of setting our whole life savings on fire by burning them to ash. At least I’m for compensating the people who came into the distressed system as is Kwan with giving them a 10% stake in the new system. The burn way you’re proposing gives legacy holders essentially a .0005 or less % stake in the burned down Luna system, or practically nothing when they had it all compared to the bottom feeders who will get quite a bit with the fork compared to their contribution. They contributed a lot less than 10% to the Terra Luna system so watching the greed in play where they as Johnny come latelys want to ride in like raiders and take from the people who built the system really tests one’s faith in humanity.
It’s a nice conversation. Let’s put a dollar figure on it. If someone had a million dollars in Luna before the attack, how much would they have after the dust settles with the burn system?
And how much might they have in the alternative system with the fork?
My guess is they’d be lucky to have $100 after the burn and they’d probably have $50k to $100k with the fork with the potential, since the supply is only a billion tokens, for it to go back up to a million after a few years. With the burn getting from over 9 trillion tokens to down to a billion is just a pie in the sky proposition. It’ll never get there. And it was only 343 million before the attack, so going to a billion is still a haircut. But with the burn it’d be lucky to ever get down to hundreds of billions and as it burns the price goes up so the cost of burning goes up too. With that dynamic, realistically the burn system would probably only be able to burn a few hundred billion tokens and would never ever even get lower than 8 trillion let alone down to a billion. Do Kwan obviously understands this.
The pro-burners do not.
It really looks more like the pro-burners aren’t trying to save the system but instead are just out for a quick buck, made on the backs of those who’ve been investing for years.