as there’s no IBC, or something similar, you are not anchored to USDT or USDC like with LUNA2, you are anchored to USTC.
So people can convert their tokens and the two classic coins only with LUNC and USTC finally , there are no stablecoins.
Even the price of LUNC it’s divided by USTC. So no stability. No support price.
If USTC will survive, possibile LUNC rallying it’s slowing by UST. What is missed is to de-list UST and convert all remaining UST into LUNC, draining all the remaining liquidity into LUNC.
You can’t have both, if the other one it’s not collateralised to fiat.
This proposal is to have a single community with LUNC and not having Terra Classic divided into two coins-community.
You can vote this proposal, deposit and find it at no. 4510
I have spent time and money supporting USTC with pair pools too, but it’s nonsense.
All i’ve seen it’s liquidity went from USTC to LUNC and viceversa. No stability.
It’s nonsense. Not only for LUNC itself, but also for all Terra Classic whitelisted tokens paired with LUNC and/or USTC.
You forget that UST collapsed because there was a lack of funds in BTC or FIAT currency (USD).
What is the point of creating a new UST if it can no longer be pegged with LUNC?
We still forget that governments are requiring escrow and hedging for all stablecoins, the others will be illegal. UST as it is now, with no funds or anyone to guarantee coverage cannot be used as a stablecoin, furthermore a coin that also does not have negative interest rates, cannot guarantee that the PEG will hold. Ethereum’s RAI is an example of this, and works on exactly the same anti-inflationary principle.
This is not a good idea. All USTC in circulation is bad dept because market module is disabled. Draining USTC liquidity is more or less stealing money from people.
@vedova bigger market cap there is only when the price go up. Deleting USTC and give LUNC mean create new LUNC that will be inflationary because the supply of LUNC become bigger. We are doing so much to let the 1,2% Tax burn to let the supply decrease, this is the only way price can go up, decrease circulation quantity.
So any proposal that is for issue new token must be NO WITH VETO.
Sorry but maybe I do not understand.
Buyback LUNC with USTC mean that someone that have USTC need buy LUNC, now “the buyback on the stock market mean than a company that have a free cash flow that no need use, can buyback share of the company from other that want to sell”, in your proposal is, pay USTC to get LUNC but this mean also than another person will have USTC in the hand because he sold LUNC for USTC, so 1st who will pay for this LUNC cost (buy Lunc with USTC) to give to the USTC holder LUNC instead of USTC and second all the new USTC holder will be paid from who?
There is no sense in this proposal, just let the USTC live on is foot de pegged from LUNC.
PS: I read the title “Proposal #4510 - Convert all USTC into LUNC draining all liquidity into LUNC, and de-list USTC” where is write buyback (that is same not possible as I explain before?)
