I think taking snapshot on May 7 for aUST is not a good idea. Maybe taking snapshot when say 20% liquidity was removed from Anchor, or a UST price fell to 80c or something. Numbers could be altered but in short, the snapshot should be later to exclude people who sold close to $1 price.
The proposal has merit in its sentiment but I still maintain that the following proposal is far better thought out [Proposal] Terra v2.2: A Fair 11-point Confidence Restoration Plan for the Terra Enterprise
Ok, very good proposal too.
@FatMan I have been following this proposal for a while and naturally agree with it.
With the LFG’s limited budget, I don’t think they can make most UST holders whole anymore. A small compensation for common ppl who put in 6 figures is not good enough. Just because these ppl are not small holders (5k/10k/50k) doesn’t make their case any different.
I am proposing a something slightly different in addition to the above proposal. All figures below are hypothetical
Ppl holding upto 100k - get the full 1:1 dollar value
Ppl holding upto 200k - get the full 1:1 dollar value for the first 100k and then 80c to a dollar for the remaining 100K
Ppl holding upto 300K - get the full 1:1 dollar value for the first 100k → 80c to a dollar for the remaining 100K → 70c to the dollar for the remaining value
And so on, until maybe 500k which according to the terra v2 proposal is the whale cap.
In addition to this, snapshots should be taken of before depeg and after depeg at each level where ppl who sold - 90c 80c, 70c, 60c, etc, so while refunding not the whole amount needs to be refunded but rather the percentage that was sold below the dollar price. For instance,
→ if a person sold 100K of UST at 60c, that person needs the remaining 40K to be whole.
→ if a person sold 200K of UST at 60c, that person needs 80K to be whole. However, we can implement the above caps to compensate 64K, as for the 200K bracket, its 80c to a dollar.
Also, another thing to note, ppl who are still holding UST (and had the same UST before the depeg) hold 10% of the value, not full compensation is required there either.
This might sound complicated but, will be a fairer refund method than giving everyone a same capped amount of 50K. A lot of ppl won’t even get 10% of their money back with that method.
So @FatMan if you have the ears of the LFG, please pass this suggestion to them.
how do I vote for this?
Cus anon_as9 isn’t sketchy though??? WTF Dude.
Aside from the fork, is he going to be refunding small wallets or is that a drop that will be a refund?
I agree… + my 2 cents:
Decentralization or Dictatorship?
Who removed all the governance proposals? Was there a vote to remove the proposals? Was there even a public discussion or announcement?
For a community and project that prided itself on decentralization, I’m shocked at the lack of concern and discussion about the clear violation of the community’s voice. Regardless of whether or not those proposals were “good”, “bad”, or even possible. Regardless if you agreed or disagreed with the
proposals. Our right to vote and decide on the future of the project, our own financial future, what we believe in is far more important than the money lost.
When somebody has the power to remove proposals because it’s against their best interest, because they don’t agree. When somebody has the power to force only the proposals they want, this is no different than the oppressive regime of our traditional financial system, this is not decentralization, this is a dictatorship designed to steal your wealth. Our wealth will always be stolen so long as we allow this behavior.
If this dictatorship is masking it’s lies of decentralization, what else is it masking? lies about its crash? Do you honestly believe terra2 will be any different? Terra2 is not the solution, dictators don’t just give up power. It will be the same masked dictatorship as this one is reveling itself to be right now. What we really need is true decentralization, without it we are doomed to repeat the failure of terra. The only reason to create terra2 is to redirect the scandal of terra. Terra already has everything we need, everything is already built. It only required a few minor changes, and for the power to being given to the community.
The worst part? This dictatorship is succeeding in dividing the community, and will successfully transfer the wealth of the masses to the wealth of the few. Just like the corruption of our tradition system, they win by dividing us. Our only chance to make true meaningful change is to stand together. Weather we agree with each other or not, that should come down to a fair vote, with everybody’s proposals on the table, not just the dictators proposal.
Just for transparency, I fell for this scandal like most of you. I believed in terra, I loved the terra experience, I believed this was a decentralized system. I lost much of my savings to this like a lot of you. I’m not trying to spread fud, I’m only pointing out the blatantly clear and criminal behavior that seems to be being ignored and pushed under the table. Removing of all proposals is a big red flag that should not be ignored, that act alone is showing their big ugly dictatorship hand. As long as the control is in that hand, we will always be the victims.
The real issue crypto is suppose to solve is this precisely, corruption.
Power back to the people.
What is this then if our voices are being silenced?
No worries, if only 450 are getting refund, I am sure I will not receive anything, because they start from the smallest accounts.
www . reddit . com/r/terraluna/comments/us4v5m/the_rabbithole_that_lead_to_do_kwons_missing/
If this is true, then the LFG still has more than 90.000 BTC
this is the wallet: btc . com/de/btc/search/3M219KR5vEneNb47ewrPfWyb5jQ2DjxRP6
Edit: seems to be a Binance cold wallet, containing not only the LFG funds.
I agree, since $UST was offered as a stablecoin and it didn’t happen that way, beyond the risk that a cryptocurrency involves, $UST should have had a lot less volatility for being a stablecoin and ensuring that holders at least have less loss.
It is clear that the forking proposel (not the fatman proposal) is just another sca**
Investigating the btc reserve and legal action is the best shot for ust holders.
Do kwon tries to fool everyone, pitting ust against luna holders and having fun.
Just so that i understand the forking proposal correct. The price of luna went from 80 usd to 0,00014 usd. So someone who bought at 80 usd will get the same amount of luna coins who did bought for a 800000stel of the price?
Also giving 20 percent to post ust holders is as worse. Those who bought cheap after the attack bought for 1/10th of a price and get double the amount 20% instead of 10% for pre attack ust holders. Post attack buyers getting 20 times more than people who did buy and hold over the last months or years.
I don’t see how and why this proposal got so much traction … a lot of people been commenting on other threads to follow this proposal. Seems to me Fatman wants the Luna holders to just go to hell.
@fanatec Do kwon, tgl lfg are the only ones who does us want to go to hell with their greed. Thats for both luna and ust holders. They kept or sold the majority of the btc reserve 3.8b to themself or they whale buddies.
Less than 2 percent (80m) is left for 99 percent of the users. And even out of this tiny amount 60 million is locked
I think Fatmans proposal reading the comments was also meant to help luna holders by creating trust back into the system by compensating ust holders and then focus on luna holders. (I think it was also meant as one measure out of other proposals, just as a first step)Ust holders do not deserve to get rekt as someone who did not invest in a stablecoin. However luna holders should at least be made partially whole as well. Do kwon enjoys pitting ust holders over luna holders to distract where the btc reserve went. We should not fight to get 0,5% back. Better to unite against do kwon, tfl, lfg. Let the authorities freeze their assets, investigate the btc reserve and then there is a chance that we get more than breadcrumbs
why is it using 2022.05.07 as the snapshot - when people made deposits late 8 may? Are those not UST they had to swap into? was not the attack during 9 may or so? why so inconsistent, just like his misleading tweets?
I thought you said people were saying NO but the vote seems to be in favor of it. What proposal number were you looking at?