Hello Luna community (I’m just a buyer of Luna/UST),
I have read a lot of proposal and I would like to point out some thoughts as I see several threads where only certain point of views are considered [mainly UST side / Luna side / whale / non-whale].
1. Snapshot before de-peg does not seem reasonable to me
In my opinion a snapshot before the de-pegging event (which was initially very slight) should not be used to create a fork and continue. Why? I believe so as a lot of people have been able to sell their tokens for a value close to the value before the depeg. Why should someone get a 100% allocation if he was able to sell his Luna/UST for 95% worth (relative to value before de-peg) compared to someone who held and lost everything? Moreover, this suggestion does not consider those who bought Luna/Ust after the de-pegging event. I have very often seen comments blaming these buyers as greedy speculators who tried to make a gain. Yet, there was no official announcement (and there still isnt one) that the purchasing of the affected tokens should be stopped. Moreover, in my opinion the token was not hyperinflated immediately after the “attack”. I believe that the death of the token price was caused by a kind of bank run:
→ old holders withdrew their ust, dumped their ust => de-peg (more difficult to regain peg)
=> arbitrage opportunity for those who mint 1 dollar worth of luna with 1 ust (as far as I understand)
=> inflation.
However, instead of trying to implement measures to stop the inflation, it was further increased which then amplified the death spiral of both Luna (resulting in hyperinflation) and UST.
The events shown above raise the questions:
→ Why should those who dumped their ust and thereby contributed to the death spiral get an equal allocation to those who held on trying to keep the ecosystem alive?
→ Why are those who tried to help regain peg not considered?
2. LFG funds / Should they be used to refund small holders?
-Where are these funds? Have they been used already/or are they still there?
-It would be important to get some insight of the current holdings?
In my opinion, it would not make sense to exclude whales from a potential refund just to refund the majority of people. Wouldnt this be some sort of robbery and exploitation of a minority?
=> If there is a refund, then it should be made proportional imo.
3. Creation of a refund plan based on occured losses?
-What if there was an allocation mechanism based on the total of occured losses per user?
Allocation for User x: Loss of User x / (Total sum of those who lost)
(For those holders before de-peg, the loss can be maybe calculated with a token value before de-peg and the holdings of current value)
Example:
Let’s say the token value pre-attack was 100k for both person 1 and 2 respectively (person 3 had no tokens pre-“attack”).
Person 1 held his tokens till it was 1k worth and then sold (=> 99k loss)
Person 2 sold his tokens directly after the small “attack” for 99k (=> 1k loss)
Person 3 bought tokens after the “attack” trying to stabilize the ecosystem for 100k sold for 1k (=> 99k loss).
The above proposed allocation mechanism would then give Person 1 and 3 a higher allocation as they are the ones most affected.
This mechanism requires a lot of data and maybe a form could be developed where users could send in their wallet address which is then evaluated. Besides, it would require to work closely with cexs. However, other proposal plans often did not include cex holders at all. (Also current holders should be considered).
4. Communication
-I would love to see a bit more communication and transparancy by the team. Even if it is only a statement that you guys need more time, then you should do so. In my opinion rushing things is not the way. Rebuilding is a long process which requires the evaluation of all point of views. Also the team should try to accept any external help/be open-minded to any proposal/discussions.
Thanks for reading. What are your thoughts?
