Why don’t we tax and burn ?
Why don’t we tax and burn ?
Why don’t we tax and burn ?
Why don’t we tax and burn ?
Why don’t we tax and burn ?
That’s what LUNC victims want. Enough of this indifference, you’ve got us fed up !
Who is this replying to?
Also I admit I do not have your group details feel free to pm it to me or just post it here. If you already have I appologize for missing it.
1 Like
I’m probably missing something here, but why isn’t there a proposal to reenable the mint/burn mechanism? LUNC has basically gone to 0 and will never do the ~100,000x to reach $100 again which hurts, but it is something that is done now. USTC holders have seen their life savings go down 99% but there is still a possibility of salvaging those savings. If the mint/burn mechanism is turned back on, yes, it will hurt LUNC a lot more, but if the coin has already gone down 99.99999%, another 99.99999% will hardly make a difference to pre-crash LUNA holders.
People who are buying LUNC now will get rekt, yes. In an ideal world, no one would get rekt, but we don’t live in one. I believe people who held a stablecoin should be allowed to redeem it for the 1$ they were promised, even if it is at the expense of memecoin speculators. The promise was always that 1 UST can be burnt for $1 worth of LUNA. UST is what made LUNA a top 10 coin and UST holders were the primary users of the Terra ecosystem. No revival can ever succeed without UST holders being made whole.
This is a simplistic and flawed plan. For example, people who no longer hold USTC do not benefit from this (unless they buy back in order to burn for $1 worth of LUNC which would cause upward pressure on the USTC price at least). There is also the issue of new USTC holders taking advantage of this. To combat this and minimise the damage to LUNC, I propose that the mint/burn mechanism is only allowed for each wallet based on their UST (or equivalent aUST) balance at the time of the depeg. This is again, flawed, as it doesn’t include people who held UST on exchanges etc, but it’s the best we can do and will include most of the affected population(Anchor users).
Something is better than nothing. The ship for fair compensation for all those affected sailed weeks ago and unless something is done now, people will move on and no one will get any compensation past the new LUNA airdrop (what happened to the measly LFG reserve that was supposed to be distributed to UST holders?)
In short, I propose the best course of action in current circumstances is to reenable the mint/burn mechanism and give a chance for most pre-depeg USTC holders to redeem their 1$ pegged stablecoins for 1$. Once these holders are made whole, the ecosystem can be revived without this back-breaking baggage. Unfortunately, with the current governance structure, this will struggle to pass as USTC holders cannot vote on proposals. I understand that LUNC is the governance token, but a system in which arguably the primary stakeholders do not get a say in the governance of the system is a flawed system.
1 Like
Just one question. Why on earth do you think DK or dev/validators will let you and your team control terra 1.0? They won’t even allow you to hold a governance vote yet alone manage the network.
2 Likes
Many people seem to not understand some fundamental rules of how the economy works. In the end, the basic rule of supply and demand defines the value of the asset. With burning mechanisms, you control the supply of the asset, the volatility of its price, but not directly its price. The reason is, with these mechanisms you do not control the demand of the asset. You have to incentivize future buyers that it is worth investing in it, in order to give value to the asset.
To put it simply, a worthless asset will probably have the same price whether its supply is a couple of hundreds, millions, or billions, etc.
2 Likes
Exactly.
1 Like
Somebody needs to lead us into the future, or we are doomed to fade into irrelevance and perish.
1 Like
My question is how do we vote and IMPLEMENT your plan and install you to leadership?
Rarer assets tend to value more than common ones. Burning may not have an immediate effect on value, but it will over time. Right now, $1 USD equals approximately 10,000 $LUNC. IF we reduced the supply by 90%, ideally 1000 LUNC would equal the dollar. I understand that in the real world is a bit simplistic, but it’s the idea. If we can reduce the supply enough, demand for $LUNC will increase as it supply decreases. Supply and demand tend to be inversely proportional to each other. I would also assert that much like the phrase “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, the value of an asset is whatever the global community thinks it is. Why is gold valuable? It is a soft metal, that by itself cannot really be made into anything? It does conduct electricity, but that use case is only approximately 150 years old. Why is Bitcoin valuable? It’s software, and not even a tangible asset. Once again, as there are 21,000,000, it is scarce.
1 Like
The flaw in your reasoning and of many others is that you assume the classic Luna is the same coin as it was before the crash. That is not even remotely true. Basically, it’s completely wrong since it hasn’t the utility used to have. So, you try to forecast its pricing behavior in the market, but you talk about a different coin. This will lead you to completely wrong results, since in your analysis you are taking into account past behavior of a different coin.
I recommend everyone to read again carefully the interview of CZ in Fortune magazine about Luna, especially his opinion regarding Luna classic. I quote him, “it is going to be worthless”. Obviously, that holds for the current stagnant state of Luna, any changes about development on the old chain will lead to reevaluate its utility and consequently its value.
This IS how the real world works, look no further than in the stock markets. That said the new LUNA coin and the leftover TFL funds are how the origional UST holders get back at least some of their value. That IS the only way to make those that sold after the crash regain some value as they cannot benifit from USTC increasing in value, as they bo longer hold it.
Now same logic says some held and did not sell. They will not only recovour 100% (IF we can get USTC back up to $1), but they get added value (approx 30% to 50%) from recieving the new coins as well. There were also some that not only held, but bought more in hopes of a recovery. They will do very well.
Its unfortunate that some will not make a full recovery unless Do Kwon & TFL do what they need to do to ensure that happens. BUT if it does not I would be first in line to do something to help like set up a recovery fund. It may take time and would be dependant on successfully rebuilding our ecosystem.
In fact I will update the plan to add this point as that is fair and resonable and can be done.
Re-enabling mint burn IS part of the plan, in fact most want it. Its not as easy as turning on a switch though. Code changes need to be made and safeguards need to be put in place to prevent future attcks. BUT YES, I want staking re-enabled as early as possible.
Repegging USTC will NOT make pre depegging USTC holder’s that have sold whole, BUT WILL at least help those that continue to hold whole.
We can then work with TFL on ensuring the rest are taken care of. This will be a process that will take time. Hopefully aquiring snapshots, and figuring out who has and who has not recovered. Also those that swapped UST to LUNA before it was turned off technically are made whole as they got $1 of value at the time of “selling”. So those should technically be removed unless their funds got stuck as a few did. We would also look at smaller wallets first then move up to the larger ones. I think that is a fair approach.
Also if you read my plan, I am proposing to add LUNC token holders to the voting process making this a true governance Token.
Yes, we want to also know WHERE is that money. There are groups of holders working hard on traking that and the mysterious $3 Billion worth of BTC that disappeared, (sold according to TFL). TFL has it within their means to make every pre depegged USTC holder whole, but we will see if they really want to.
Bottom line I agree with you that old UST holders should be paid in full, but that is up to TFL and Do Kwon to do as he/they where the Commander in Chief at the time. This plan will involve a separate entity running Newco, that had no involvement with what happened. But as I said I would still do what I can do to help make them whole, but it’s not up to NEWCO to do this alone.
3 Likes
We will see I guess. This will be a true test on how much of a governance token this really is.
Currently they do not seem to be interested in the old chain. They are too busy focusing on the new coin. Now that said, they would obviously benifit from a revived network in many ways including monetarily. If they can do that with little to no work it’s actually a big win for them right?
I think this but mostly your plan ended any desire to work with you, now and into the future. I have experience in leading tech teams on end to end products. What experience do you have?
At best this is dangerous and at worst quite predatory. Your plan will involve wiping out all holders of USTC, LUNC, & New LUNA, so you can get the code and IP cheaply via bankruptcy. Then rebuild it for profit off our backs??? This is a community Governance Token not some asset to steal for next to nothing.
I am not offended you don’t think I’m a qualified leader if your bases of qualifying a good leader is by doing what you are proposing. I am curious how you plan to push TFL to bankruptcy lol.
Also if you actually believe TFL and Do Kwon will ever file bankruptcy you’re NOT paying attention. As much as he has screwed us over, we have a new coin that he is doing a lot of the right things with to build back lost investments. If New Luna can hit $30+ range than old UST holders that got new coins have a chance at a full recovery. That would mean a lot less lawsuits.
2 Likes
This is one reason of many why I say we must BUILD utility into $LUNC. ABSOLUTE MUST!
2 Likes
It is NOT the same coin, and it will never be the same, it will be better! Imo.
Currently there is a limitless supply (6.9 Trillion) with no real use any longer. That is DEFINITELY not the LUNA coin of the past.
My plan takes care of both those by reducing the supply and adding future development for new uses like NFT’s, Payment processing, Metaverse, and whatever other Dapps want to develope on a new stabilized ecosystem with limitless options. This also is DEFINITELY not the LUNA coin of the past, it is so much more.
1 Like
Yes this is absolutely crucial for any coin to thrive, and even more crucial for LUNC due to it’s reputation now.
4 Likes
they are not interested in old chain and at the same time they are not interested in delegating any control to anyone over it as well.
@Tarie_Nosworthy, @Deathstar_Daddy
When I said in my previous comment that the current Luna is not the same coin as it used to be, I was referring to its stagnant phase of no utility, development, etc.
These are some incentives in order to give value to the asset and attract new investors, and they are directly connected with the demand.
As I said before, with burning mechanisms you mostly control supply, price volatility, but you can’t magically give value to a worthless asset because of low supply.
@Tarie_Nosworthy got it, building on the chain is the only way forward, otherwise it will remain a meme coin as it is now, with its price steadily going to the bottom. It’s a shame a utility, governance coin became a meme coin, because it was never its scope. That is what we are dealing with and how serious the problem is.
4 Likes
I think we need to reach out to developers to stick with LUNC and continue to develop it. There is a massive community that humbles me… if value can be brought back to LUNC and burn mechanisms applied, deals with major exchanges etc, then TRUST and CONFIDENCE will return which will mean demand will return.
2 Likes
我们可以质押ust/Lunc 领取NFT吗? 