LUNA Go Forward Proposal

Currently we can’t do this since the network is halted. I am also very worried about my bAssets

How about the revived version for LUNA? Many people talking about reviving LUNA & UST as a collateralized stablecoin, However I think it would be great to launch as an algorithmic stablecoin to regain trust again [Proposal] Revive LUNA (RUNA) with new Airdrop, with the focus to heal grassroot investors and to regain trust for Algorithmic Stablecoin ecosystem

I would like to understand what is going to happen to the bAssets and other tokens that currently may have a value in other chain. Will be possible to bridge them out?

In any case let Luna live and scrap UST. If done this way, Luna/UST supporters on exchanges that came in to hold during the attack and held Luna/UST on spot until the end should be given the same benefits as the long term holders, 40%. These are people that did not even bother to take profit or cut losses but held on to the end giving everything to support disregarding all the warnings as they believed in the project and wanted it to survive. I personally sacrificed my entire trading account in support of Luna while people were laughing at me for doing so.

Luna to the end


Not discriminating at all, but coming here to complain and pretend you were a selfless hero trying to save the world while just being greedy and selfish and then losing money is not the way to do it.

1 Like

I have put forward a proposal, hope you guys read this

@TerraBuilderAlliance : Simplest & Fair Proposal

  1. Return/Refund only the invested amount in other stable coins / New Project.

You can easily scoop investor’s buying/selling activites from various exchanges to know at what price they bought LUNA & related coins/UST - & just only refund that amount (irrespective if they can profit or were in loss). This is not only fair, but will 100% reinstall the trust in TERRA as an organization coz no one will lose in this model - not even TFL, anyone.


are you saying that LP providers on other chains should be left out?

This also sounds ok, or let the holder
Provide transaction hash yourself? But don’t know if it’s feasible
Sounds like a lot of money, or a busy confirmation job

I mean, by that logic, no-one has the right to complaint. You don’t know anyone’s Holding or anything, but labelling them as selfish and greedy isn’t done. Everyone has different motivations for buying or selling. Don’t tell me that other people who bought pre-attack were not selfish and greedy?

When you invest in a crypto coin, you know the risk you are undertaking and by that logic, no LUNA hodlers should complaint regarding that.

Now, UST is a stablecoin and it was marketed as such. So, they can complain, and all the legal actions taken will be by them and not LUNA hodlers. That’s the difference.

1 Like

I’m reading the proposal and all I can see is cheap manipulation and greediness to abuse the situation!

There are many users, starting from big $B investors all day to individuals that hold one token, They have all been there for you! and they all lost and bleed EQUALLY the same %. Some of them bought more when the price went down, to recover their losses, others bought the deep as they were supposed to, believing in Terra that it may be bounced back, and maybe even a few probably contribute their funds from pure Ideology to support other people’s losses. At the end, they have ALL been there FOR Terra! each on his one way, and all one big community keep fighting to go on, and bleeding as they do so. so now there is no room to leave ANYONE behind, regardless what are the reasons or timing they bought their tokens. first because it’s not the right thing to do to other people in general and certainly not to Terra’s community that right now needs more than everything to regain trust in the project decisions. , and second, it will anyway not going to hold in court against class action law sue, due to obvious discrimination.

Everyone is EQUAL. it doesn’t matter if they hold Luna or UST, on-chain or off-chain, on terra networks or other networks, on their wallet or on their CEX wallet, if it’s staking or liquid. they are ALL EQUAL!!!

And if the decision will be to re-launch LUNA, or re-lunch UST, it’s fine. and if the decision will be to set a $10, or $1, $0.1, or whatever as a baseline price for Luna v2, it’s also fine. AS LONG that this baseline price and the ability to convert v1 to v2 will be open in a fair way for EVERYONE!

and if the decision will include special rules, like a staking period when converting v1 to v2, to prevent from dumpers hurting the v2 price, it’s fine as well, as long as long that those rules will apply to EVERYONE including the team and funders equally., NO ONE will get better terms over others. we are ALL on the same boat, now it’s up to us if you want that boat to survive or die due to the wrong decisions


A simple solution is to fix the UST/Luna conversion rate as of the last on chain transaction, making UST effectively same as Luna.

1 Like

Fair conversion to LUNA V2. Dont leave anyone behind. Why snapshot before attack?? Incentivize the dumpers and shorters?? Dont look at the amount of tokens someone has but look at the invested money. Lets say you bought for $1000 LUNA V1 then redistribute the same worth in V2.


I don’t have a confirmation. But frankly as a techie - don’t think its undoable if they have good working relationships with exchanges (Which I am sure they have). The can provide transaction logs for Luna. or probably has some way to use onchain data to refer to transaction size, price buy or sell. for all HOLDers - this should be done. people who ran with making profits obviously - can’t do much about it.


EVERY CURRENT HOLDER NEEDS TO BE TREATED EQUALLY. Then the project will regain trust.


no way this project have another chance on the market is they begin to treat investors differently

1 Like

Yes, but peg the UST correctly 1:1
They sold billions worth of LUNA tokens, why they didn’t peg the UST 1:1?
Should been done already
Priority , as the whole world watching what happens with TerraUSD

The baddest decision will be if they leave holders behind. Then the new token is doomed.

1 Like

I also bought at $33 and now I lost about 2.5BTC

the real problem of most projects is the poor math under the algorithm.
Before proposing a tier or whatever solution, we must need to test in critical scenarios.
You cant print to oblivion and after realising it is a bad idea.

My real proposal is to correlate with exp^-(Velocitymoney). means in this case big attacks like that will slow down.

Recovery of the money is nearly impossible. The way could be to create a fork with an exp^(Timelocked), which means people how to lock up for a long time will receive the new coin in a more balance way