Summary
@RedlineDrifter created a great proposal that could (theoretically) raise USTC to 1. But why we dont want to raise LUNC with an same beautiful scheme? Just imagine how much assets we will have when FTX-wallet or someone else tries to sell a large bag.
Proposal
Apply the same scheme to LUNC. It will be fair.
there is 0 good about $LUNC I’m afraid.
So you’re against the Drifter?
You dont want limit large sellers and shorters?
I’m against $LUNC 1000%…binance review their tokens annually and i cant see the support for LUNC continuing.
i never invested in #lunc only Wrapped LUNA.
i bought $10 worth on sushiswap…which turned out to be $wormholeLUNA … suppose that unwarps to $LUNC .
looks like wormholeLUNA will be giving all to $wLUNA imo…time will tell i cant read the future, i pray its bright for $wLUNA THOUGH.
Yes. LUNC have much larger volumes and manipulations, for LUNC this tax is much more useful.
I think you’re on the wrong Agora bruh
If the community supports this I can work out the divergence protocol to be applied to LUNC also. Community can decide and I’ll support either outcome.
I simply do not get where from does the divergence tax in LUNCs case come from? Where is the diverging point? Since the price comes from organic trades, demand and supply.
You are just obsessed with telling everyone how you hold wLuna.
yeah, that’s it. not the fact you all lied and hid the truth and stole the airdrops 
Yes, we stole them. All the airdrops. That makes sense somehow.
Tonight, a bag ~10 billion LUNC was sold. If this scheme worked, we would get a good % back.
Your choice, your pool.
The worth is exogenous, not endogenous to LUNC. I think that if the USTC proposal works and, in addition, bidirectional LUNC <> USTC swap is restored (at least in a neighborhood of the peg), then LUNC will become attractive again and the price will rise.
It’s the only way, guys.
Your LUNC bags go to 0 value.
Mathematically impossible.
Even a lot of updates couldnt stop the fall.
We need divergence tax for LUNC.