@tente77: We strongly disagree on burning the TFL and LFG’s USTs. We’re reaching out to TFL’s investment team for a separate plan. It is too sensitive for public display. Will share only when the management and partners ignore. We developed a 100MT thermonuclear option that should only be used when all the other parts of the system are in-place and ready. The execs will come to know this is called Operation Raining Bulls. All we ask is for the community to have some patience. Burn all the LUNAs you want. Leave the USTs.
2 Likes
Ok. Ok.
My only strong opinion is not to create a new blockchain and start burning LUNA. I never wrote anything about UST burning.
But there are more opinions and it is necessary to find a compromise. It sounds bad, but the complexity of the issue and the number of parties involved makes it almost a “political issue” and “some politicians” should come up with their proposals and the community should elect the leaders in a free election (which is not now).
The leader thus created will have a strong mandate and it will be a signal that the Terra community is addressing the issue and has agreed on common leadership. That would be a new beginning.
The world is watching.
1 Like
I am all for it. Unfortunately, I can’t vote on that.
Must have some kind of stablecoin bonding.
In almost every advertisement TFL claimed it was money. Not monopoly money but real money that tracks $1 USD. This is debt. The UST customers buy your 1 UST debt. When they redeem this 1 UST debt TFL must give it.
We avoided a trust because in the end whether a company or not, the operation is with the company. No company no Terra. No Terra servers no value of holding funds in LFG. When you look at the executives of both TFL and LFG, they’re made up of similar people with Do Kwon on top of both. They have a nexus between them thus a freeze on Do Kwon freezes both companies.
Fortunately Terra v2 has no UST. The only threat is the masses voting to stupidly burn USTs just because it sounds right. Do not do it. Guaranteed you will develop PTSD level regret when our plan is revealed.
Illegal aside, buying US stocks where you do not have voting rights is like not being able to vote with 6.5T LUNAs because staking is disabled. Who wants that?
Saying you want to fix the mint/burn mechanism is not specific enough. You must also spell out exactly what and how you want to fix a problem. See our Master Plan 1.2 for the latest specifics showing what and how to fix it.
1 Like
Hi @ERG ,
I think you may have took what I said as how it should be structured, or how it should work - what I mentioned though was:
- how the stablecoin pegging algorithm currently works,
- whether the algorithm was workable from a economic standpoint for soft currency (which it is - again, not saying that is the best monetary policy, but it does use a well understood economic theoretical and practical model - the same on the U.S. Fed uses),
- how the governance community is currently formed. That document itself shows that there are clear lines between the community trust, and the trustee (or trustee organization - in this case I assumed it to be TerraForm Labs). A Foundation would normally stand legally apart from any other organization(s). I did not mean to say that it is the best way to form it, or how it may be reconstructed legally. I just noted that the official documentation notes the governance community as a trust (ie. those owning LUNA, similar to stockholders, of a type, would be for a corporation), noting it as separate from the trustee. Interestingly, though, I have taken that TerraForm Labs is the trustee, but I do not see a change in trustee vote from the community when glancing quickly through the proposals that have passed in the historical archive, and if that is the case, then the actual trustees are still Ryan Moore and Remi Tetot, with the enforcer being Gabriel Shapiro. If that is the case, then TerraForm Labs would not actually be the trustee, nor is Do Kwon - though they certainly seem to be acting as the trustee (that is concerning).
Proposal 1597 was meant to address three changes that contributed to the run.
- It meant to address the mint/burn problem: It did give a very specific fix for the mint/burn mechanism - it failed due to a hardcoded limit on burn, causing a run. It gave broad discretion for either TerraForm Labs, or if they no longer represented the day-to-day activities, then the new day-to-day executive’s team, the ability to adjust the code to have the burn rate adjust upon volume pressure.
- It also stated the reserve would need to be greater than just a working reserve of LUNA marketcap, but would be able to handle catastrophic failure.
- It also maintained that purchases on the Terra blockchain should stay open as long as it is volume pressure restricted to prevent a run, and that there should be an appropriate reserve to handle this.
It also provided a thin framework if TerraForm Labs chose not to implement the proposal, and if they did not it gave provisions on new temporary day-to-day executive management, and gave a framework for who would select a slate of candidates for permanent day-to-day executive management for governance community to vote on.
These are the broad types of proposals that normally a board (or in this case an governance community) may normally give, while also checking on progress (and that worked for what Proposal 1597 was attempting to do).
My comments were not in any way meant to disparage this proposal - I was only attempting to clarify, and pass along a few pieces of information that I thought might be of interest that a validator passed along to me that I was not able to implement (but this proposal has more time than Proposal 1597 has for voting at this point, so I thought you may be interested).
I thank you for the thought that you put into your proposal, and it has made me think and reflect and is good food for thought.
I hope you have a great day 
good work , after reading whole plan looks like it will work but it will takes time, looking forward from the all the people who will support the classic , hates off thou , thank you for new idea , let see how community vote this proposal .
I agree that voting should be openen up to all holders of the token. LUNA is a governance token afterall, but maybe anything that directly affects UST, it’s holders could also be asked to vote on as well. Validators should not be given the sole rights to vote imo. They will have the right to vote based on their tokens, not status of being a valledator. They are already being compensated financially to validate. That said there needs to be a proper system to discuss and vote on matters.
To be fair, the Validators are an important part of the ecosystem and thus need to be looked after. Many think 20% was too much, but it’s hard to pinpoint an appropriate amount especially after all that has happened, and with the current state of the system. It really depends on economics. It might be a flucuating number which increases during as the system recovours and stabilizes. Also can be lowered in future market downturns.
The old system needs to continue and rebuild in order to help facilitate repatriation to old holders of both coins. The forking plan is not going to be anywhere close to bringing in enough to do so on it’sown. Also with the real possibility of having it’s assets frozen globally, it could further hinder that.
I disagree as I do not believe this new fork, or genesis chain more like will not return much of anything except to old UST holders. Various calculations have a recovery for old LUNA to be between 10 to 20 percent with the new chain.
Now with recovery to the old chain will help old LUNA(C) holders recover the difference. First we need to ensure that 2.8 billion UST owned by TFL & LFG go to old holders and be placed in an independently run fund. If UST managed to repeg this would generate $2.8 Billion dollars, which old UST holders get until they are made whole (including value of their new coins), then the overflow would go to the old LUNA holders.
You are right in that the company running the ecosystem could buy a bunch of servers and do the validating themselves. What benifit would they have for doing so?
- Servers cost money
- Running servers costs money including internet, electricity, insurance, wages for technitians, and rent.
- Repairs and even replacements to servers cost money
In the end it would cost money. Unless you mean take the 20 percent they pay validators and instead funnel that to the new company?
By doing this you remove one of the major reasons for investing in LUNA and removing a lot of value to the token.
Validators are an important part of the ecosystem.
And what about community pool and cross chain liquidity pool USTs? This proposal to do just that is close to passing, 2 days left for voting, many validators yet to vote (Proposal 1747):
Agora forums regarding the proposal if wish to discuss pros/cons there:
Thank you for the well thought response.
Remi Tetot has already informed that he will be stepping down from the LFG board and stay as an advisory capacity. Terra is too hot to be associated with at this point and could blow back on Real Vision TV and Global Macro Investors, both of which are founded by the same people. Assume all those with something to lose will be leaving soon too.
The stablecoins cannot be algorithmic anymore. The best assumption is that moving forward only CBDCs will be allowed to do this as they have far more assets than any individual company. The Federal Reserves uses the entire assets of the US (individuals and corporations both) as the collateral they borrow against, thus lawmakers would further push for CBDCs. Wyoming SPDI banks are required by law to back 1 stablecoin with verifiable $1 USD in the bank. This is the most likely direction for new stables moving forward with a clear path without the regulatory hammers raining down.
Black smoke is already rising above the building. Running into a burning building with similar strategies may be an uphill battle. Would you not want to choose a different direction?
Let us keep thinking on ways to burn LUNAs. The Robinhood minting of the Market Module should remain permanently disabled. The price oracle will need to lock the LUNA and UST price but this cannot be done without a vote. Until the UST is moved into the asset side, the lock cannot be done.
The proper amount can be dynamic. Nobody in equities carves out 20% of the company to appease developers. Name one.
There is no new fork. You must have confused our plan with a fork. We are working in parallel towards the same direction. It is time to merge. Please join us in our Telegram group.
Cross-chain liquidity pools need to be withdrawn until we can fix the damage. We cannot fix the broken pricing while active trades are happening. However, this step can be done towards the end once have a replacement UST in place. The old UST must be made into an asset and that occurs by locking in the price soon.
2 Likes
What about community pool UST?
1 Like
I’m pretty sure we are both saying the same thing. I never said I agree with a flat 20%. My plane calls for literally a fluctuating payout structure based on ecosystem stability and market conditions. I think here we agree fully.
I’m not sure where you think I’m saying this except from my origional post where I was confused when you were using USTv1 & USTv2 which you explained.
That said. I look forward to talking more via Telegram or feel free to join my Discord as well. I think we are a lot closer with our goals and plan than we both realize. Maybe merging might be of interest to both of us. There is another detailed plan I am also discussing than if we all combined could make a very solid plan I think could pass.
It’s late and I will set up my Telegram in the morning and lets discuss details.
3 Likes
Tax, lottery, bond - seriously that’s your plan, take the worst bits of a failed financial system and try to use them to rescue something.
Take the assets, divide them by 6T, and make a floor on Lunc market then burn everything acquired. You need to deflate, nothing else will work.
2 Likes
We are certain our plan when reached the key people will override any governance. The ideas presented by the community thus far will not gather any support from large investors. There is a reason why the actual board has not acted on your suggestions. We took a different approach. We are looking at the problem from the capital investment side. We addressed their concerns by giving them a plan to make some of or all their lost money back while their success would allow us to burn potentially trillions of LUNA for the community. The redacted portion are not made available publicly and we do not plan to share for the time being due to its sensitivity. We are playing to our core strengths. Carry on with community building plans.
2 Likes
The redacted part has limited possibilities as to what it can be, and as to why you would redact it. It’s either incredibly obvious or incredibly stupid.
1 Like
Have no comment for you at this time. Carry on.
3 Likes