I think the goal is to bootstrap a healthy chain, not compensation. We all lost a ton and hope to get some of it back. Compensation arguments (like fork distribution arguments) turn us against each other fighting for existing crumbs.
Bootstrapping means those who put money in now will take great risks and reap great rewards. I support everyone who does, if I can just get my money back later. We can all put in more whenever we feel like we can ā I totally understand how tough it is witth the losses still just sinking in.
Mmm, I get your point. But I was never told either that Luna would inflate to 6 trillion dollars and that the devaluation would be so extreme that new holders could get 100x our total investment in Lunaās for few bucks literally. This is unfair, if people are talking about ponzi scheme, then give the investors who fell with the depeg what is theirs.
None os us were told about it and to be honest it was a poor decision that shouldnāt have been made. If it comes to light that this was an attempt at a Ponzi scheme then I completely agree people should get there money back but that is not what we are here talking about. We are trying to Fix luna which in turn will fix UST and those people that still have there money can in the coins can at least get some back if not all.
Iāve read the whole topic, and the only reason I can find to explain why NOBODY before HelloThere has actually made the āburning proposalā was corretly pointed out by Luke17.
"I am a traditional finance professional, having worked as a trader for 6 years and now being a portfolio manager for a bank.
Given the volumes going on, as a lot of people already stated, any form of āper transaction burnā would be highly effettive in the long term and there is no way no one at the foundation understands this.
However, if/when such a measure would be announced, price will obviously increase rapidly, not to pre-crisis level but still significantly with respect to current level.
My guess is these guys are doing exactly what an insider trader would do in the traditional finance: accumulate LOT of tokens in exchanges before announcing some sort of burn.
That way, they can get back at least some of the reserve money and firepower they have now and use it to buy/burn more or lock it and burn it linearly or some other form of removing tokens from circulation. Another possible use would obviously be some sort of compensation for UST holders given that LUNA holders would benefit from the burn itself.
If they are doing this, we should expect an announcement whenever they are ādoneā accumulating (but while volume is still high). I hope they are using provents to reward the community and people who have invested and to save the project in the long term. If they are not doing it, I suggest this as a course of action."
IMHO, all the plans to recover proposed during the past few days are just a way to take time and cover the main plan which was already established when it was quite clear UST couldnāt recover its PEG. Also, isnāt it quite suspicious that nothing, and I mean absoluetely nothing, has been done from the day the ācataclysmā happened?
I cannot believe DK and his mates are so dumb not to have considered the burning option to recover.
I hope you are right that TFL/LFG are massing up capital and slowly buying LUNAā¦. Without an announcement though we should proceed without counting on it.
No burn would happen on CEXs? LPs would have a 3.3% āfeeā? On chain price would tend to be 3% āoffā from CEX prices.
This would significantly favour CEXs who may have most of the voting power now. I support a fork with 2 chains: [Proposal] Friendly fork: 2 chains but the non-forked chain I think would have this CEX friendly voting block behind it.
Pretty sure the exchanges have already said they will not support a fork and i also donāt think anyone would buy it we need to fix the problem. CZ from binance is behind the buy and burn and Iām sure he would be more than happy to help if only someone would talk to him
Of course not. Your luna will be there, only luna of the project team will be burn, which means the team must buy back luna if they have not enough luna in their hands.
Exchanges can support v1 token. Fork has IBC and can trade (hopefully directly with v1) but with any IBC chain to get exchange on/off ramp. CEX wishes a complete non-issue for fork.
Those who bought 1M Luna for $100 have all the voting power now. A fork is needed to serve interests of those who got screwed by getting 1 to 1000 luna for that $100. Everybody involved would still have separate interests on each chain. CEXs supporting v1 is good for v1. Big players traditional validators who failed to buy luna on last tick, supporting fork is good for fork.
The CEXs have the power because Luna holders failed to meet the debt of UST holders due to systemic flaws and mismanagement. The new fork will have zero value until the debt is repaid.
Letās work towards a solution to fix the systemic flaws and restart a more resilient system where Luna holders donāt get diluted while UST is still able to retain its peg (some of these solutions are already discussed here), instead of running away, trying to start from scratch and forgetting what was owed.
Either way you can fork and have a new chain if there are enough validators to support it but it wonāt go anywhere without CEXās support.