[Proposal] A financially viable LUNC proposal

Governance & Proposals
47

Better than any Roth IRA ive ever seen

48

Ok, from the feedbacks I’ve received so far, it feels there is some good basis to move forward but the current proposal may have to be rephrased in order to get some more support and engagement from validators, devs and DK.
Please see below how it would look like:

First we need to secure the LUNC network and restore governance so here is the new deal

  1. We offer to buy back 6.499T LUNC tokens from the whales at 0.00001$ + 100M LUNA European call options 2Y strike 20$ (simpler and very realistic)

  2. So we need 65M$ cash + 100M LUNA from the LUNA community pool

  3. Overall, whales gets an average price of 0.0003$ per token for selling 6.499T LUNC, thats attractive

  4. DK / Terra Money to raise the 65M$ or use LFG funds (if any) and lobby publicly and with Binance/FTX/KUCOIN to help broker the deal

  5. There aren’t that many whales…

Then Terra Money together with the community and builders fix USTC and allow it to repeg

  1. Here are some suggestions:

  1. We vote to decide if we burn some community wallets eg. LFG, core if it helps with the repeg

  2. This allows the network to get back to a functional state and builders to relaunch their dapps to capture back some or all of the 100M LUNA spent for the buy back and burn

Finally, LUNC becomes a pre prod / experimental / lower scale fully functional network to support LUNA

  1. There must be a cap on the total amount of money in LUNC so it is safe to use and it doesnt replace LUNA but rather complements it

  2. Builders can experiment safely new ideas in a prod network with real incentives (real money). In particular FIAT to Crypto ideas such as new stable concepts etc.

  3. We invite Institutionals / regulators / retails to participate safely and experiment with digital money before moving on to the large scale LUNA network

  4. Stakeholders in LUNA will want to participate to the network to strengthen and battle proof their apps in LUNA

  5. LUNC becomes a sort of launch pad / buffer / prod testnet for apps in LUNA

  6. It will come under real life pressure / attacks (as opposed to a testnet) but in a controlled way because of the low scale and will allow to learn when things go wrong to make full scale LUNA apps more robust and resilient

  7. Builders spend 30% of the LUNA community pool to get a fully functional pre prod env with real incentives and stakeholders

  8. LUNC / USTC stakeholders can recover some or all of their losses, confidence is restored in the Terra ecosystem and community will be united again ==> Community happy, Validators happy, Devs happy, Mods happy, DK happy everyone happy

@aeuser999 @Atoj @moonplatoon @AtoZ and others please help circulating this amongst builders, validators and the community in general if you think it makes sense

3 Likes
51

why do you believe Johny is DK? anything to backup this theory?

also, not sure why this opinion is being censored. doesn’t hurt to speculate? no ?

"This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

View ignored content."

1 Like
52

Well, this will give you little hints… [Proposal] A financially viable LUNC proposal - #22 by aeuser999 and mod are following his leads, and the mod is scared to close the Do Kown post which is already passed govern… LOL, that is how screwed up.

1 Like
53

A significant problem many have with the T2 chain is trust. Tying T1 to T2 going forward is probably not the best idea - the two probably need to go their separate ways.

Regarding the buy back - it strikes me it may be more effective to pay whales for directly burning LUNC themselves rather than to purchase it from them to burn. That avoids directly concentrating those funds anywhere before burning them (ie, avoids a governance attack, assuming governance returns to something approximating normal - see next point)

The other issue here is that proposals are difficult to fairly pass right now. With the emergency locks on delegations etc in place any vote on such a proposal is fatally flawed. The very people being targeted by this proposal - the holders of freshly minted LUNC - are the ones who have effectively no official say in the process (beyond either taking or rejecting the deal offered).
(Edit: Typo fix)

54

thanks. well let’s entertain the possibility that this is indeed DK himself. Then the question would be why this? why now?
but either way I don’t support this proposal.

55

We cannot support any proposal moving forwards, before these governance issues with fixed by community favor. The community must vote first on the government, and how we will move forward, then we can process every proposal.

These 3 options we have:

  1. restore governance, keep the same government, and vote to pass by like before
  2. Rebuild the new governance structure, and keep the same team
  3. Rebuild the new governance structure, and move on with the new T1 Team
3 Likes
56

Im ok with this.

I dont care if he is Do or not.
Proposal when mixxed with aeuser opinion ends in good road.

So go for it.

3 Likes
57

I agree I like the @johny suggestion above mixed with aeuser999’s proposal. I’d vote for it.

1 Like
58

I would suggest DK needs to be removed from T1 governance at all cost.
There is an obviously conflict of interest.
The reviving of T1 could be detrimental to T2. DK has made it clear that he is 100% in support of T2.

2 Likes
59

I mean you give them the money you don’t know if they will burn their tokens or not. That’s why we use a smart contract, they lock their tokens, buyers lock their USDC and the transaction automatically goes through if both parties have done their part or cancels after 1 month or whatever. buyers dont need to trust whales and vice versa

That’s why I’ve rephrased the proposal, currently there is no governance because the network is unsafe, and to have validators / devs / DK and the whole community support it we need to make it attractive to them.
So I think with this proposal we have 2 networks which complement each others in a nice way, but we keep a single united community which benefit from both and I think that’s cool and makes it very realistic while helping people recover their losses. It also allows to integrate those currently excluded back into the governance process

2 Likes
60

Well, he could use this proposal on his T2, not on T1. T1 should NEVER be his staging and beta testing experimental network to LUNA… If you are allowing him to make more mess over T1, he will shoot it down later after “home calling” assets settlement from Cosmos network.

61

Since you have no governance, let’s discuss the govern at [Proposal] Future of LUNC with New Governance - #71 by MetaMinded

1 Like
62

he will shoot it down later after “home calling” assets settlement from Cosmos network

Correct!
Dont give him the opportunity to carry out the above.

1 Like
63

Before we do everything, let’s vote for the governance for the sake of the community… Here are easy options for people to vote…

image
image1479×754 124 KB

2 Likes
64

I vote for new governance with new T1 team.

4 Likes
65

If the smart contract includes executing the burn itself, sure, I may have misread the proposal and subsequent thread but that wasn’t the impression I got - I was concerned that the burn would be an independent step following the buyback.
However - AFAICT there’s little stopping anyone from offering such a deal to whales right now - just design the contracts and obtain the funding. At most the formal proposal needed would be to re-enable the functionality needed to allow the smart contracts to function.

I would suggest this is a problem to fix before moving forward on recovery plans.
As I said - any apparent consensus reached in the absence of effective governance will be forever suspect and further undermine confidence.

Once things begin to return to “normal” they’ll still interoperate as independent (and at least initially, largely identical) Cosmos based chains, with broad compatibility.
However, it’s simply too late to maintain “a single united community” at this point - the community is divided already - on many bases. There’s the ideological/trust divide, there’s the ownership divide (old vs newly minted LUNC holders, new LUNA holders vs LUNC/UST holders), there’s the focus divide (T1 vs T2). The horse has bolted, trying to shut the stable door now seems pointless.
The Agora threads themselves demonstrate this divide - there’s clearly two camps developing, and trying to keep T1 and T2 sewn together under a single plan, particularly under the existing “leadership” (such as it is with a decentralized system), is only going to alienate half the community further. Allowing each to go their own way amicably, and to engage in healthy competition, is probably the only way to salvage goodwill across that divide.
Reestablishing some kind of interim but fair governance to identify how to proceed appears to be a necessary first step, regardless.

67

we will run the fair voting on terra station, let’s see how the voting works… They must whitelist those two proposals for people to vote for.

68

Mod here, have literally no idea what you’re on about

69

Don’t know why people think Do Kwon has time to post on the forum under an alias lmao