Is it do kwon that updated it again? Thanks by the way
I agree with this proposal, but I’d like to add an additional suggestion
How do I create a post?
I’d like to put my suggestion in
You can just comment here and tag @HelloThere .
Although time is not on our side we have to hurry. If their proposal passes on the 18th then we are screwed.
So people buying now or after the attack are forgotten according to this?
Token Distribution
1,000,000,000 Luna tokens
- 25% - Community pool, controlled by staked governance
- 1% - Essential Developers emergency allocation. No lockup
- 4% - Essential developers (1 year cliff, 4 year vesting thereafter, granted after launch traction)
- 35% - All bonded / unbonded Luna, minus TFL at “Pre-attack” snapshot
- For wallets with < 1M Luna: 1 year cliff, 2 year vesting thereafter
- For wallets with > 1M Luna: 1 year cliff, 4 year vesting thereafter
- 10% - Luna holders (staking derivatives included) at the “Launch” snapshot - 10% unlocked at genesis, 90% vested over 2 years thereafter
- 25% - UST holders at the “Launch” snapshot - 10% unlocked at genesis, rest vested over 2 years thereafter
AND THEN THIS:
- “Pre-attack” snapshot to be taken at at Terra Classic block 7544914 (2022.05.07 23:00:04+08:00)
- “Launch” snapshot to be taken at Terra Classic block 7790000 (2022.05.27 03:59:51+08:00)
- Chain upgrade to commence in a few hours after the Launch snapshot
- Snapshots can change depending on development readiness
Not sure what to make out of it. Something feels off to be honest. Is it a trap? Make everybody happy at the same time?
Can you explain further? How do you see they are tryin to make everyone happy. I dont see Luna believers who bought after the attack from for example $40 down being compensated fully. Maybe I missed something or misunderstood?
This seems really off. …And It sounds like those that orchestrated the attack would be getting compensated with this plan as well, since the snapshot is before the de-pegging?
bump…
1st type of LUNA holder: Heavy bag pre-attack, didn’t buy anything during and after the attack (did not average down) → Now has the “hope” of getting new tokens that can cover his pre-attack investment.
2nd type of LUNA holder: Average bag pre-attack, bought during and after the attack (average down) → Now has the “hope” of getting new tokens that can cover his during(&post)-attack investment.
3rd type of LUNA holder: Accumulated during(&post) → “hope” of covering that investment + possibility of a bull run
4th type of LUNA holder: post-attack+dips accumlation; pure gambler; → profits from a bull run.
(…) these are just thoughts from the top of my head. Don’t really know what to make out of it.
There’s not much hope any more. The new fork proposal is a bid to take all the devs/builders/validators from “classic” LUNA. It’s being left to waste away…
Sorry to all of us (everyone!) who put their money in (whenever you did). Stay safe and best of luck!
Shame on the devs who assist to the next r ugpull
Well, i was thinking something along those lines. It seems like a blood sport. Probably the average retail investor is just a pawn in this whole game. Let’s see what happens.
So if this becomes Luna Classic, would the community be left to run? If so, couldn’t we implement a burn mechanism ourselves?
I honestly feel like we are being conned. How one chooses to not burn LUNA with this proposal that does not need any reserve is not better than forking is something I can not understand apparently.
Just spam this proposal and win , spam this…
You can still make this proposal happen to Luna classic, even if do kwon’s proposal pass…
this forum is useless, because he only does what he wants.
Seninle sonuna kadar beraber olacağım. Sana güveniyorum.
Do not be surprised if all exchanges (binance, kucoin, …) halt/suspend trades. This can go wrong for pairs with LUNA and UST (specially stablecoins).
Guys do kwon is back on it at twitter. Dont forget hashtag BurnLUNA.
Lets bombard him there with #BurnLUNA