[Proposal] Burn The Remaining UST in the Community Pool + Cross-Chain Liquidity Incentive UST 2

Governance & Proposals
1

Hey there! :wave:

VOTE HERE

This proposal has been created because Burn The Remaining UST in the Community Pool + Cross-Chain Liquidity Incentive UST failed to execute.

The original proposal requested to burn 1017233195000000 uusd, since it was the current amount available in the community pool when the proposal was created. Sadly, another proposal (UST Goes Interchain: Polygon Edition) passed, removing 10500000000000 uusd from the community pool.

This proposal uses the actual amount of UST available on the community pool.

The original proposal status can be found on the blockchain.
Same for the current amount of the community pool for the new proposal.

–

FAQ

Since the proposal passed, why cannot we move the fund manually?

No one has direct access to the community pool. Fund has to be moved by a proposal.

Why the proposal is 7 days long?

This is the needed number of days for any “Community Pool Spending” proposal.

What will happen if the amount in the community pool change again?

Then this proposal will fail to execute again, but I don’t see any other “Community Pool Spending” proposals currently active that are likely to pass.

18 Likes
3

Please move Terra Station to the main governance page so everybody can see it and not drown in hundreds of spam proposals.

10 Likes
4

agreed

3 Likes
5

YES! So that we dont have to scroll through other junk proposals!

6 Likes
6

Thanks for this

2 Likes
8

the proposal was just whitelisted https://station.terra.money/gov

5 Likes
9

so it is impossible to speed up the process? in the meantime DK can edit his proposal halfway?

2 Likes
10

it is impossible to speed up the process, nobody holds the keys to the community pool.
and the proposal type is Community pool spend proposal, which means it has to go through the regular voting process and it will get auto-executed after it passes.

proposal 1623 is of type Text proposal, so it is not going to be auto-executed, hence it is possible to adjust it in the meantime. the changes made are clearly communicated, and there is plenty of time for validators/delegators to change their vote if they disagree with the modified proposal.

2 Likes
11

It will be interesting to see whether people vote for this again… given what happened last time.

3 Likes
12

Now it won’t pass. Validators main concern is $LUNA right now. Before it passed as an attempt to restore the peg now that reason do not exist anymore.

1 Like
13

the validators is actually a big issue now. some might move to the new chain while vetoing proposals on the current chain

1 Like
14

iVerUrX
:thinking: why slow chat enabled?

1 Like
15

Hello All,

Full disclosure, I am a (small) holder from before the “attack” (coordinated exit, whatever you want to call it). I’ve spent the last 8 days, essentially 15-20 hours per day, poring over every proposal, comment, theory, tweet, etc… Obviously, no single proposal is perfect for everyone, and it seems as though the wheels are in motion to establish Luna V.2 via fork (and were in motion even prior to the final vote). That is all fine and dandy, however DK (and the validator/dev team/LFG), should grant those who want a different course of action (whether it be burn or some other remedy), the ability to pursue our own course. With that being said, I believe the community to begin to shift their attention to LUNA (classic) post-DK (PDK) in order to achieve whatever goals we’re hoping to achieve via an actual democratic voting method. We need a new community led leadership team, devs, a new governance model, etc. This is no small task.
Many people will recommend CZ (due to his favoring of the “burn” vs. fork), and obviously he would be a top choice, however I’m not sure he has the time, interest, or wants to become involved in this matter any more than they have already dragged him in. It could also be viewed as a potential conflict of interest. Even more so, it is quite apparent that DKs move to fork is a not-so-apparent attempt to spite CZs proposal. Why? Jealously I’m guessing.
People may scoff at this, however a leadership member (or former member) of either the DOGE or SHIB team may be willing to become a charter “partners”/foundational members for LUNA Classic (as it is now known). Say what you want about these “meme” coins, their governance model truly functions at the will of the holders.
Finally, what is the path forward? Again, that would be for the community/holders to decide via new governance model. However, I think some things are apparent:
UST must be depegged/abandoned. An algorithmic stable coin was never the answer, and will be of no use if still “weighing down” Luna Classic (LUNC). LFG is working to compensate the UST holders, as is the “airdrop” for Luna V.2. Any other compensation would be the responsibility of DK, LFG, and their new creation (V.2), or by any other legal means. The point is, LUNC cannot be weighed down by DK’s baggage. They are pursuing another path (V.2 fork), and it is his/LFG’s responsibility to make them whole.
There must be a burn. I’ve read many comments saying “there is no money, any remaining holdings of LFG will go to UST holders”. That is great, and as it should. This is where we can implement the staggered transaction tax (staggered in terms of amount, rate and time). What exactly those numbers will be, can be determined with new governance model.
So, obviously this proposal doesn’t have the votes to pass “as is”, however it set a wonderful foundation for the future of LUNC (Luna Classic), which we should now be focused on pursuing as a new, standalone entity. Again, we should prioritize recruiting/establishing a new leadership board of trusted cryptocurrency community leaders (few and far between, however as I mentioned outside of CZ and Vitalik who would have no interest, our best bet is DOGE and SHIB members). And finally, we should pursue the method we choose as community members via a new governance model/vote.

5 Likes
16

We all know why. I got silenced for 24 hours for calling out DK.

1 Like
17

We need a rage quit option for those with pre-depeg UST/aUST Do Pesos. Allow anyone with pre-depeg UST/aUST the option to opt out of the terra 2 airdrop and provide them with full compensation for their original UST/aUST amount.

7 Likes
20

Yup…it will fail again…

1 Like
21

How do we know that this will pass this time? Can the UST that is planned to be burned be locked so that the value cannot be changed. Also will this be a phased burn or all at once?

2 Likes
22

if you included Luna’s burning and recovery in that proposal then you would have the approval of all the underdogs. There are many on Luna.

But his plan is to use Terra and Luna’s funds to save only the UST.

It makes no sense. The UST only works with Luna’s existence.

I cannot approve.

1 Like
23

For those who can’t read an unformatted JSON file that was linked in the propose and shows the current amount available in the community pool, here it is:

|ibc/817B|$12,091.65|
|ibc/7C6C|$11,814.05|
|ibc/0269|$2,661.30|
|ibc/CFD1|$13,523.77|
|ibc/4297|$4,455.30|
|ibc/7E09|$191,917.30|
|ibc/BE913|$131.48|
|ibc/A1A5|$1,400.33|
|uaud|$997,212.37|
|ucad|$867,530.74|
|uchf|$882,899.97|
|ucny|$695,661.45|
|udkk|$818,120.04|
|ueur|$1,073,380.34|
|ugbp|$753,604.71|
|uhkd|$467,642.57|
|uidr|$854,686.82|
|uinr|$938,392.12|
|ujpy|$1,024,293.83|
|ukrw|$3,185,277,496.28|
|uluna|$10,123,660,648,485.60|
|umnt|$1,631,525.08|
|umyr|$145,014.16|
|unok|$233,565.11|
|uphp|$702,859.13|
|usdr|$1,422,753.22|
|usek|$1,029,939.55|
|usgd|$213,747.74|
|uthb|$1,061,753.29|
|utwd|$248,508.01|
|uusd|$1,017,233,195,481,990.00|
24

It doesn’t affect Luna, the minting/burning mechanism is still disabled!

2 Likes