Someone explain me like I’m idiot
I fully support this approach. Please pin this. Long term this appears to be the best solution, while maintaining confidence in the system, maintaining a free market where winners and losers are not chosen over others, and truly offers a path forward for response and recovery in this crisis.
5 Likes
Has there been any ground made on the proposals?
I was out last night and trying my best not to watch the market but man, this market sentiment and massive increase in price tells me that there is something positive going on?
Can’t seem to find any updates on Do’s post or Twitter!
2 Likes
Nope, seems like he doesn’t really care imo.
Extremely disappointed by him. Golden boy finally tested and showing lack of leadership sorry. I just realized he never really took responsibility. Rather than talking about a vulnerability or a flaw in his own creation, he instead points out to an attack like he is the victim. The people who bought his coin and followed his recommendation to “Hold steady” are the victims.
I’m actually realizing I’m in awe of the attackers despite my losses, they did a really good job teaching him a lesson. I would like to know who they all are, and I surely will start following their twitter account as well!
I still can’t believe he didn’t stop the whole minting process much earlier, when Luna was still worth much more than UST, and he could have recovered Luna, review and change his code, and then save UST. He and his team are totally responsible for the billions vanished into thin air.
5 Likes
I mean, though I do agree in some respects - I have to ask, why is the price recovering so well?
Those of us who were die hard luna supporters were buying up the 0.000001 price point and have already made our money back at this point - How much higher can it go?! At this point I can’t imagine not walking away from this with a profit!
Though I do feel for everyone who suffered a loss, stuck in staking or UST - I just hope that I wasn’t the only one who DCA’d in to reduce my avg cost - and I hope that whatever plan they decide on, it incudes us supporters that were there to the end.
I can’t imagine the price having increased this much and market sentiment seeming this positive without SOME kind of positive change happening in the background.
If there’s one thing i’ve learned about crypto - it’s that when there’s a massive shift like this, it’s almost always because of insider information that we’re not yet aware of.
Only time will tell!
I remain hopeful.
What are you talking about?! Price dropped 1000x+ and now it’s just about 4x from all time low. Who made money?!
1 Like
Best possible way out.
1 Like
We also have many customers who believe in the project, who have bought a lot of luna for staking on our platform
but seeing this is a fork proposal, we preferred to suspend this staking on our site.
If they fork it is to make a fix so that the problem does not happen again,
but in the case of a fork, the new holders must have the right to migrate their current coin 1:1
it is not by doing a fork that it will solve the problem
Let him listen to Cz-binance
2 Likes
This won’t work.
- forking does not give the new fork any value. That’s wishful thinking.
- one cannot void all transactions after an old snapshot, both on-chain and off-chain (exchanges).
Where is all the BTC that was supposed to be used as reserves?
2 Likes
$1B disaster buyback fund - is there any even theoretical possibility to use it for reversing trades made with LUNA during last hours before halt? Prices for those trades were so low that it would enable to reverse and thereafter burn some trillions of LUNA…
Nice write up.
Now everybody understood that without Luna, UST is nothing! (However it is 2 sides of a coin, how it is designed algorithmically)
So minting luna for ust’s ghost amount is worth nothing. (Glad they stopped that but was too late i think) That means, minting will decrease the lunas price, for holding peg was huge error.
Ust is crypto currency, backed by luna. So king is luna. With lunas supply amount of ust bills are printed.
People that placing ust to number 1, stop doing, thinking that way!
If who can’t understand, think that way.
You have ust, thats like paper dollar bills. That day, at attack monster rat appears, and ate half of your paper bills. Who’s wrong? Blame that rat, and try to find and kill it.
Luna holders were strongly backed up for ust, and was trying give new bills to ust holders while rat ate bills from ust holders.
Currency is currency, if it is cash, we know there is soo many problem, you could damage it, someone could stole it, even, your dog can chew it. But with electronic money, all this problem with physical damage, there is nothing. But big rat planned the attack to steal your ust currency electronic bills, not luna. Luna was tried to help you. People with ust must try to find that monster rat.
People with luna holder, must taken care at FIRST!
2 Likes
With the solution that the creator of this post made, a fork is not needed.
3 Likes
This proposal has a lot of merit, however there are a few issues economically that I would disagree with. As far as I see it:
- Both LUNA and UST are assets (A) that are tied together. When they cross markets there is a liability (L) and the net result is equity (P). A - L = P.
- LUNA is the governance coin (and a reserve), UST is the stable coin. Both have value. Both back one another up. The net of both added together are the assets (in addition to any outside reserves that are owned by the DAO governance holding LUNA).
- Contrary to belief, UST and LUNA are backed by real money - it is the buying power of the money received (or expended) when the coins were / are initially sold (or bought back) (there may be some other forms of monetizing as well - but this is the essential essence).
- The minting / burning is really just an algorithmic way of moving funds from one supply market to the other in order to bring equity. So, this is real money, both Terra and the DAO will be responsible for this legally. You can not just burn or mint without actual value behind it.
- Some have asked why the supply of UST keeps growing - people are selling it faster than it is being purchased with LUNA (burned in exchange for mint in LUNA). However, I will say that the market cap is still in the billions (even if the pool size is diluted). This is why the minting process was exaggerated in LUNA, in order to buy back UST to diminish the UST pool size (making it more scarce, and therefore more valuable - and since LUNA was what was mainly being used to do that, it made LUNA less scarce and therefore less valuable). It is supply and demand.
- The problems have been:
- the burn / mint rate was hard set rather than set based upon volume of sales / exchanges on the Terra blockchain
- no automated volume level restrictions on sale of assets (purchase of assets should not be limited)
- stopped purchases at the time adding buying power to the assets was needed (although I do realize it was to prevent a run on sales and the value of supply and trust level - the protocol should be amended to allow sales to be rate controlled while buying is not). If there is a reason buying would present a problem to the ecosystem, then that supply should be purchased and held in reserve.
- loaning money from reserves to market makers rather than using it to buy back UST to diminish supply and raise the value (Terra could have done this themselves, or the Governance could have done this)
- there may have been an emergency plan that the Governance had approved, but if so, it was either did not exist, was not followed well, or it has room for improvement (which is probably true for every emergency plan).
- throwing in the towel when there is still 3B in market cap for LUNA (it is just diluted right now), and 2B in UST (as of 5/14 at 4:37pm CT). This is more than enough capital to restart this project - new projects would love to have that much capital to start with. Will it be the 40B dollar size it was - no, it has already lost size, and you will need to start where you are at 5B. But, this is more than enough to both save LUNA and UST over the mid term by burning and minting as buying power is still available in LUNA, buying back UST with remaining reserves, and then as UST pool size shrinks, slowly resell UST and covert it to LUNA (by burning and purchasing back LUNA). This is how every single person eventually can regain the value of their LUNA and UST. No bailout plan is going to get your money back with the exception of pennies on the dollar - wouldn’t you rather wait it out and potentially get the whole amount back and have the opportunity for growth? The community can vote on whether they would like a guideline in place for who, such as low income persons or those who had savings account products, are paid back first if there is a desire to provide more immediate help. If not, then something that instead is easy and equally applied to all based on their shares / number of coins (or something else).
- There is not much difference between the model that Terra used here and the model of most fiat currencies (although in banking, the funds are insured and that is a big difference).
- Hard currency is better than fiat in that it is actually backed. It is true that the fed backs currency, and that our currency is the currency of the international monetary fund, but even the fed uses dollars, or derivatives of dollars, to partially back up the very dollars they release (which is completely crazy). Our only saving grace is that the US still holds the largest gold reserve, but even it most likely would not have been enough if a similar situation that happened to LUNA / UST was scaled up and attempted on a country wide level or against the NATO states and the international monetary fund. That is why the fed constantly manipulates the fiat system to attempt to keep it in close enough balance, even if it means they devalue money (sadly). The point though for this situation is that the LUNA / UST project was not much different than fiat monetary policy, although it was obviously overextended and did not back the stablecoin with enough reserve value and restrictions to selling under pressure.
- There is an obligation to those who were sold LUNA / UST as a savings account (that one is a legal liability that I am pretty sure that if you do not recover from will have some serious legal implications - possibly even for governance members, but particularly for the day to day leaders of the DAO governance project).
- The course was not fundamentally flawed (or at least were no more flawed than fiat monetary policy), but certain specifics mentioned above were (and currently are - and there may be others that I have not mentioned or thought of besides these I admit, but as I see it, these mentioned above are the central ones). The problem now is whether either the current team will re-engage, or the DAO Governance members will take leadership and relieve the current day-to-day team, and place a new day-to-day team in place to re-engage. No amount of rebranding is going to be any easier than just working through this - and it will come with much less legal complications and responsibilities in the near future.
Putting this thing back together is completely doable at this point - without even having further outside funding (you have 5B in assets between the two tokens, and whatever may not be loaned out from reserves), but rather working over the next number of months to minimize the pool sizes, regain trust by restoring the value of the assets (both using the current assets and minimizing the pool sizes of those assets, as well as bringing in new purchases). If you happen to get further outside help - fine. But, you have what you need financial now to do this, and although it will recover on a smaller scale and most likely slower than most would like, it is more than doable. You have a fiduciary legal responsibility to do this from what I am seeing (although I do admit that I am only seeing as an observer and not from the day-to-day leadership team, or those who have been closely tied to the DAO governance since the beginning).
The idea here is to shrink things down to their actual monetary size, and then move from there toward new growth - it still is going to be larger than most other decentralized stable coin projects.
If I were to list the threads that seem most promising at this point they would be:
- agora[dot]terra[dot]money/t/8-steps-to-save-luna-now-economic-refactoring-proposal-from-industry-professionals/7510
- In regards to the points I mentioned above that are similar
- agora[dot]terra[dot]money/t/buy-back-and-burn-luna/10946
- In regards to shrinking the pool sizes (although I disagree about UST being dead - at this point they are just diluted pools that need to shrink through equity [purchasing through minting and burning and purchasing through buy backs and either hold in reserve or burn after purchase]). But, minting and burning should not just happen in a way that violates monetary buying power under the token assets - you can’t just burn without purchasing it first, that is essentially devaluing the whole system monetarily, and then you do hit the point of being counter productive and driving away any remaining value.
- Proposal 1164 or 1169
- Only as temporary solutions to allow the minting purchasing of UST and burning sale of UST to shrink the pool and provide a smaller supply to enable a larger demand. On a permanent level, these should be based on volume of trade, and that trade should be the UST to LUNA (and vice versa) on the Terra chain. Do not worry about arbitrage on the exchanges, you can apply a volume control of exchange on your own block chain for when sales / exchanges are too much volume that could create a run and quick loss of confidence - you can slow these down to a reasonable pace on your own block chain (let traders on the exchanges do what they would like).
- agora[dot]terra[dot]money/t/terra-ecosystem-revival-plan/8701
- I would completely disagree, but I can sympathize with how difficult this must be for @dokwon both as someone who is probably very tired right now after this week, and someone who is watching a good portion of the work he has done feel lost as people continue to say it’s over.
I would post these points, but my LUNA was purchased wrapped and is not on the chain. Feel free if there is anything in here that is useful, refine it into specific and succinct points, and put it on the governance section as a new proposal.
I hope that helps a little bit.
5 Likes
I was able to buy 50,000,000 luna at 0.00000112 (the lowest and very last possible buy order on binance) - for $569.07 BUSD. It was $10 per 9 million luna (the cap!)
The price has since risen by 4000%
You do the math - If you were a supporter of luna prior to the attack - Why didn’t you DCA? I did? Many avid Luna supporters did - I’ve been in Crypto since 2017 and have a similar story to yours - We’ve been here before - If you believed in the project and that UST was “Stable” Why didn’t you DCA with a few hundred dollars at the bottom to hedge your bets and reduce your over-all average cost?
I did and quite a few other newbies in crypto joined me and we’re in a much safer position now because we did - because we didn’t lose faith in Luna.
You do the math - 50,000,000 Luna = 0.01 = $500k USD and so forth - This isn’t outside of the realm of possibility here - especially with a potential burn.
I’m sorry you lost your money, I really am - I have lost money in similar situations to you - but I would have suggested DCA’ing at least $500-1000 at zero.
You wouldn’t be sweating as bad as you are now - In your position, I likely would have bought double or even triple my holdings and by now, I would have already been looking at 60k-100k USD at current market value - for what? $500-1000 USD? What’s $500 when you already lost so much? If not “Insurance” at best.
Any announcement of a burn - or any positive market sentiment could easily produce a profitable result - as you would know being in crypto this long.
I always aim to prepare for every outcome - 9 times out of 10 - I’ve profited because of it.
I don’t feel like we, the avid supporters of LUNA that held the line all the way to zero should be penalized for not losing hope.
@hellohelix I maybe got mixed up in my replies and meant to respond to another person - Sorry for any confusion! I think I meant to reply to “I'M A DEAD "WHALE". I Have 4 Kids, I Lost It All, And These Are My Thoughts - #32 by svsdmr05”
3 Likes
This is the way
2 Likes
In my Opinion this proposal is the only one that is addressing the underlying Tokenomics and is proposing a logical and achievable path forward. Frankly, I’m surprised there are not more comments or mentions of this proposal. Maybe some people don’t understand the economic models and relationships. Continuing to prop up UST in any fashion without addressing the dilution of LUNA is a waste of time. As others have stated, forking this project is end game and nothing for all.
10 Likes
This is the only proposal that will work, they want to fork the chain to payback investors that lost money.
4 Likes
I lost all of my money. I have nothing now.
Thanks for the insightful discussions. This proposal should get more traction
4 Likes