LUNC path forward

General
1

First of all, I reread the Whitepaper, interesting and illuminating given the events in the last months.

To insiders: Did the team follow the intent of Whitepaper?

If you did, then clearly there are major flaws in the design and it should be scrapped and re-conceived.

If you did NOT follow it, then Why not? Would you bear some responsibility in not following the plan that everyone bought into? Was a new Whitepaper written for V2? I might have missed that.

In the discussion of LUNC moving forward, we have all just glossed over the fact that many of the extremely large position are held by the same team in charge of V2, insiders, developers and validators. So in these discussions of burning and the path forward, we realize that some of you will likely make much more money with a LUNC recovery that most of us promoting the rebuilding.

To be honest, since you gain the most from the V2 fork, the honorable thing to do if you have no interest in LUNC going forward would be to burn your own wallets completely, release control over LUNC and stay working on V2. So will you do that? Yet to be seen.

There is no reason that the growth of LUNC and LUNA cannot share a parallel path, but it seems insiders object to others making money on a LUNC recovery?? Why is that? it make no sense in a mature conversation. There are some that are traders no doubt, but the majority are looking at a long term growth path built around the original intent of speed and low fees.

The most sensible move would be for the small number of holders from the insiders is to let new governance take over, if you want to participate, fine. If not, then burn your own holdings and focus your efforts on V2.

What say you?

2 Likes
2

define honor
Salute to the “honorable” people.
end define

if any honor
good
end if

3

That hasn’t been a lot of response to whether the original Whitepaper was adhered to. Would like to understand that and why.

And still don’t understand why if the V2 supporters are moving forward with V2, they would want to destroy Classic?? Doesn’t make sense. Let it go or work with those willing to do the work if you are confident in your own path.

1 Like
4

I haven’t seen people wanting to destroy LUNC. It’s an independent project now: and can propose, vote on, and implement whatever changes it wants. Validators can choose to run it, devs can choose to work on it, and regular people can choose to buy and sell it. If it’s gone in a few months, it will be because of those validator/dev/user choices: not some mysterious malevolence trying to hurt the coin.

As for the whitepaper, yes it was implemented: specifically the Death Spiral for USTC/LUNC was baked-in from the start. It was the same design feature that killed many other algorithmic stablecoins before it. But it can make the founders and project managers rich initially, so projects keep using that design.

1 Like