Devs > UST > Luna > VCs path to success

Framework: Developers > UST Holders > Luna Holders > VCs

Developers: Without developers, the V2 or V1 will never rise from the ashes, so they should be given a justifiable chunk of the allocation but the vesting should be extremely conservative. As an example, 1 year cliff, 5 year vesting, with majority of tokens unlocking in year 4 and 5.

Remember liquidity is king, and Luna (V2) will have thin liquidity with huge supply overhang and we want to align the LT interest of the project. If they are devs, they should commit to at least 4-5 year horizon to build and ripe their fruits, than cashing out Luna v2 aggressively in year 2-3.

UST: The UST holders have put life savings to the extent it impacts their normal life with family and kids. Luna holders knew they were participating in a volatile asset similar to stocks and signed up for unlimited upside and downside. So, it does not make sense to give 45%-70% of equity to Luna holders. They have set aside enough cash and stablecoins to survive.

UST holders had no infinite upside but maximum downside. The tragic stories in real life have started to emerge! Luna holders rekt, but they have other stables and other tokens. UST holders rekt and literally left with no stables and limited crypto, which also went down by 50%. So, does not make sense to pay the debt holders such a little amount. They should be compensated the largest or larger % to avoid lawsuits and constant threats to Luna ecosystem developers.

Luna holders do not have much ground to enforce any legal actions but UST holders will do extreme things. Imagine your 1 USD turns to $0.05 in the savings account compared to stocks getting bankrupt. Not imagine, this actually happened and they can’t meet daily expenses. The vesting for UST holders should be more loose compare to other brackets to allow them to meet their living cost and made whole.

Luna Holders: They signed up to participate in a volatile asset with large price appreciation opportunity and downside movement. The protocol acted exactly in line with the whitepaper, dilute Luna to protect the peg. So we are talking about different risk profiles. If they believed in the LT vision, they should be accepting a standard 4 year vesting.

VCs: For those who already cashed out on Luna, they should have the most strict vesting schedule. They really need own up to their LT mantra. VCs represent the largest holdings and supply overhang, and it does not make sense for those actors who have cashed out big time already, get another liquidity when the retail is literally harming themselves. I’m talking about the likes of Novo, Hashed… They lost a lot of paper gains but still cashed out big time. No problem feeding their family right? additional 1-2% and 1-2 years difference won’t matter for them if Luna V2 makes a come back.

Let’s do the right thing.

1 Like

no v2 enough of shit , just do what community need right now if fail go to 2nd choice we talk again .

What will give Luna V2 any value? It’s just another coin but this time it doesn’t even have the asset backed algo stablecoin concept on the other side of the trade. Wouldn’t this by definition have a much lower value than pre-crash Terra Luna + UST?

First of all LUNA holders are not getting any cash compensation. They are getting tokens whose price will be decided by the market. UST Holders want USD equivalent cash compensation, USD that Terra does not have. Traditional bank savings accounts have insurance however the Anchor savings did not have any insurance and UST Holders should have done your research about that or purchased a third party depeg insurance.

For example in the US every savings account has an insurance of $250,000 by FIDC.

@shoyru: what you are referring to doesn’t matter, whatever has the best probability of creating economic value is most important. I’m not going to be a judge of V1 or V2 or V3 or infinity. Here, I’m suggesting the token allocation and vesting schedule once we decide on the appropriate version.

@Quoc_Tuan_Nguyen: agree thanks

@driedraisins: Agree but just reviving the current version will result to another death spiral. So it has to be either V2 without stables which will make the mcap lower, unless it becomes the dominant L1 chain. Or V1 with different stablecoin mechanism. I don’t know enough to be the judge on that. Here, I’m suggesting on the resource allocation once we decide on a particular version.

@MagicalTux: Agree generally but UST holders will have a ground in the court because there are plenty of online materials published by the team to suggest and imply that the peg will be protected within the reasonable ranges. DYOR FTW. They may win something legally but won’t result in economic compensations because its all gone.