Prism's yLUNA Holders should be entitled to LUNA V2 Airdrops

Governance & Proposals
1

Summary

This proposal is in response to the recent announcement that cLUNA and pLUNA holders would recieve LUNA V2 airdrops but not yLUNA holder.

The thinking is that because pLUNA represents the principal asset value its somehow entitles pLUNA holders to LUNA V2 airdrop. This is not only a flawed and illogical way to interpret the right of ownership, but it also lacks consistency.

Ownership of an asset at its core is the control of rights. The right to move an asset, sell, rights to future yield, right to control vote or right to principal value (AKA face value) cash flow. These rights of are divided between both yLUNA and pLUNA when refracted hence it’s ownership is shared. This is why you need both yLUNA and pLUNA to mint cLUNA and own 100% of one LUNA. But the question at hand is which refracted asset has the right to the LUNA V2 airdrop.

It only make sense that it be yLUNA. yLUNA represents the right to all future yields generated from holding LUNA. This includes airdrops and always had, both recurring like ANC, MIR,… and one time airdrops like HALO. Why should LUNA V2 airdrop be any different…it’s yield. Another airdrop for holding LUNA.

Now if you were to say that some allocation of the airdrop should be given to pLUNA too given the unique circumstances. Or so that everyone get something in order to protect all community member. And maybe base the distribution on the the market cap between the two refracted assets, I’d honestly wouldn’t even argue with you. Or maybe you refracted LUNA V2 and gave pLUNA V2 to pLUNA holders and yLUNA V2 to yLUNA holders. Ok fine.

But there is no scenario where it makes sense to airdrop LUNA V2 entirely to pLUNA holders only. That’s completely backwards and rooted in the people misinterpreting the word “Principal”. The principal or face value simply represents the value of the final cash flow payment of LUNA when it’s redeemed. It is not by any means analogous to full ownership of an asset or rights to airdrops/yield.

Motivation
The current proposed distribution of LUNA V2 airdrop to pLUNA holders makes little sense. It’s inequitable, lacks consistency and is in breach of the rights promised to yLUNA holders when refracted.

Proposal
I am proposing that this is amended so that yLUNA wallet addresses recieve airdrop of LUNA V2 so that its consistent to what was orginially promised. Or at least come up with another solution that palatable to both parties where the airdrop is shared between both asset owners.

  • I also find it incredibly troubling that someone is arbitrary making these decisions with no community input. And as far as I can tell, we don’t even know who is making them. These decisions require careful interpretation by people that are literate and famliar with financial jargon and derivatives.

Feel free to reach to reach me on Twitter to discuss.

www.Twitter.com/thecryptocents

5 Likes
2

I fully support this proposal. This is absolutely unfair. You could not make Luna, without owning both yLuna and pLuna. Each of the tokens separately will never make Luna. Well actually you could make Luna directly from one derivative asset by swapping it on AMM. But and this is a HUGE BUT for 1 yLuna you will get 4/5 of Luna … or for 1 pLuna you would get 1/5 Luna. Meaning you will only be able to redeem 1 Luna for both 1 pLuna and 1 yLuna. So how can it be fair, to give an owner of pLuna one full Luna. That’s sick. This is lacking thorough investigation and is an absolutely simplistic
and sloppy solution to Terra V2 airdrop. To be absolutely fair you have to look at pre-depeg snapshot, compare ratio of yLuna:pLuna (e.g.: 4:1) divide airdropped Luna by that ratio and provide Luna pro-rata to that ratio.

3

Hi All, Honestly speaking there should be another snapshot taken when Luna was above $1 as many retail investors supported the Terra between $1-$50 when a proposal was progressing by Terra and supply was proposed into Billions. All thought the project is good and Terra was on top of the issue. They all would have been rekt along with all old investors. If Terra consider them in the Post attack Category, their losses can never be compensated as they are going to get nothing compare to the people who bought in very lower price when supply went into 6+ trillions (Compare who bought from $1-$50 with .00005). This plan doesn’t even care about the people who actually wanted to lift the project as per Terra’s plan of action which is injustice. Think about a scenario when supply went from Millions to Billions and price went down from $35 to $1 and many DCA’d thinking the project will bounce back. This is very difficult call but unfortunately there is no consideration for the people who bought between $1 to $50. They all will be ruined with this proposal and can never believe on this project. This seems to be a big mess for most of the retail investor who put their hard earned money to save Terra.