If they restart delegations and allow new validators, the exploit wallets can immediately take over the network. how do you deal with that without forking? assume you burn, how do you remove the billions or trillions from wallets to burn? what happens when you burn and say they get down to 1 trillion? again, we’re back to square one.
all it takes is 1 whale with more Luna than half the 130 validators to take over the network and this could all be done in seconds with automation. how do you stop that without a fork?
I understand why you guys want a burn and I understand that it makes sense to say that considering that most people don’t understand consensus.
If someone can explain how you stop that from happening without forking or creating a 2.0 (as do kwon did) I’m all ears. I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how they stop that. Assuming it can’t be done without a fork, then why not fork and walk away from LunaC and focus on the fork or 2.0?
According to this tweet on 16 May, Do Kwon’s intention is that “Both chains will coexist”. Yet here we are, seemingly paralyzed because no person or entity will flip the switch to enable LUNC governance. That is how Do Kwon has stopped governance attacks on LUNC.
Ironically, I don’t see any way that it LUNC can coexist with LUNA absent community governance.
So the risk is a 51% attack regarding block validation ?
That means we need to design a solution to open stacking without letting a validator or group of new validators having more than 51% of the stacked lunc
Not easy indeed, but at least we know what we need to think about
More over, anyone with a grudge against Luna / TFL / Do Kwon that was willing to spend a little money at the bottom is now capable of governance attacks. Let’s assume all validators agreed to purchase Luna C at current prices, how much would they need to buy? I guess you could say that they could buy more than the largest wallets. However, who is going to give them the money to buy that? You’'ll need 130 validator nodes with atleast half of them holding more than the largest wallets. The moment that switch gets flipped on, its a race to whoever is the fastest as far as governance attacks go. This is why there are no delegations and no new validators.
Do you understand what could happen if someone takes over the network? Like, the implications of that? You think the crash was bad…wait until you see a governance attack that can’t be stopped by a malicious actor/s.
TDLR: Let’s buy back and burn 6B UST + 6.498T LUNC by paying 130M$ today and 400M LUNC tokens later when price hits 30$.
After the buy back and burn we go back to a 2B supply of LUNC tokens only - no more USTs
We need to buy tokens back and burn them before doing anything else otherwise the network is not safe to use: PoS risk with cheap tokens
Without the buy back, Luna Classic will simply be a pump and d_mp token as no builder will want to join since it will be possible to steal assets from the network. So no DEFi, no pools, no borrow lending, no NFTs etc. It is a pitty because there are many Apps readily available to use.
After the price reaches 30$ UST holders get 200M LUNC token for a total value of 6B$
After the price reaches 30$ UST whales get 200M LUNC token for a total value of 6B$
Main advantage of using options is that it lowers the cost of the buy back: At current market price it would cost around 650M to buy all the supply. But then as you buy price will increase so really cost of buy back will be more in the Billions USD. With options, we’re buying back at 6B$ but we only need 130M$ today: Options Wiki
We could simply say UST holders get 200M LUNC tokens unlocking when price hits 30$. But with options they could sell before, if someone is willing to buy the options, some UST holders might be happy to sell and move on. With locked tokens…you’re locked
How we redistribute the new supply (600M tokens) is up to the community
Works with other burns in place (from exchange fees etc.)
How do you burn Luna sitting in the wallets of people who are holding until they can attack the network? How do you redistribute tokens? i dont understand. are you going to fork?
We make a public offer to buy pretty much all the tokens at once(6.498 trillions). This is almost like paying a ransom to the LUNC whales and I assume here that most of the tokens are concentrated within very few wallets eg. 1 to 10 (1 wallet received and sent 4.5 trillions tokens…)
To buy cheap we offer a part in cash eg. 130M$ and a part in “stock options” eg. 200M LUNC tokens when LUNC hits 30$
It’s almost as if we say here is 130M$, let us go back to business and we’ll give you an extra 6B$ when we’re profitable again (and LUNC = 30$).
If it never happens then at least they cash in 130M$ but if they refuse they’re left with trillions of tokens worth 0$ so somehow interests are aligned.
Furthermore if we can show a solid business plan by attracting some key partners, we’re showing that it is very likely we will be profitable again.
If the attack was done by a state actor, or someone with a grudge it was done with the intent of bringing down UST / Luna, money isn’t an object to them.
If you never try you never know - I tried to make the offer attractive to give as much incentive as possible.
I didn’t make any assumption about who they are, the one I made is that they just saw an opportunity and they took it. And if we offer them another one they might take it again.
If you want to buy 6 trillions of tokens, then the price should be assigned at least 0.1 cents for token. Whether no one will sell you so many tokens at a lower price. Do you have at least some idea of exchange trade?
@pivo4et Actually you have to look at it the other way around: They will sell so much that they will crash the price to 0 before finishing to sell so we’re actually guaranteeing them that it won’t happen and they’ll sell everything for an average price of 0.00002$
If you add the options and the LUNC goes above 30$ then that’s 0.001$
Not bad for someone unloading 6.5T tokens currently worth 0.0001$
Protecting money stream without any new token staked?
Validator would gain much more money if staking were available. They are running at a loss for the moment.
A governance attack is a real thing, and since you want so much to enable staking again without any security, I think you may want to make a malicious attack.
