It would take far less than $5b. With less than $2b we can refund 99.6% of Anchor wallets. That’s what makes this plan so elegant. We can use the least amount of money to achieve the maximum amount of societal good.
9 Likes
Very good, we should check data to confirm its feasibility, or you did already?
1 Like
I have worked out some rough figures (check out my first reply to the OP). The plan is feasible and even with $0.5b we can refund the vast majority of Anchor users. What we need now is LFG to tell us how much of the reserve is left (if any) and for someone from TFL to approve/enact this plan.
6 Likes
Can we also reimburse aperture users? People there lost everything because mirror had no liquidity in their contract. Still can’t withdraw funds.
4 Likes
Luna is useless and it’s dead. Also it’s a risky asset and you knew it.
UST on the other hand, was a stablecoin/saving account and people are killing themselves because they lost everything.
Move on with the luna discussions, there is not even a discussion about that, we’re discussing about UST refunds.
5 Likes
You could set it to point UST depegged below 95% too. Presuming those who got out before then did ok… relatively.
With $1.46B, we will be able to refund 99.6% of all Anchor wallets
I’m not sure that refund is possible. Airdrops rewarded to those holders is a good plan, but it would be under the hope that the airdrop value would appreciate over time. Terra is a great L1 chain with good protocols.
1 Like
We need to acknowledge both Luna and UST are important but in different ways. Luna is important as the L1 token of the terra ecosystem. UST was the “stable” driver of Luna and the eco-systems growth.
Luna could drop UST and try make it as purely L1 protocol but the damage has been done to Luna the way things are, no way to bring it back on its own at least imo.
UST on the other hand if repegged and some faith restored by this proposal or similar would allow Luna to rebuild along side.
2 Likes
Sorry to say but if you look at the chart now, UST is back to death spiral again.
1 Like
I had both LUNA and UST in multiple pools on Osmosis which have been drained 99% while unbonding, if IBC chains aren’t snapshotted for the airdrop as well then this effort will do little to restore any faith in Terra. Why would anyone add more exit liquidity after being forced to ride the death spiral to 0 and excluded from the following airdrop? The airdrop must include all chains involved.
Also another point, there should be at least two snapshots, one before the first depeg and then at least one more afterwards, this way you can divide the wallets up into more groups based on certain reactions to the death spiral.
- Wallets that panic sold their UST at a loss would only get compensation for their losses instead of getting the full value back on top of whatever they sold it for.
- Wallets that bought LUNA during the death spiral could get compensation for providing exit liquidity.
2 Likes
Two Snapshots
Native terra assets (ANC, MIR, etc) should be assigned to users (in any relaunched network) based on the very last snapshot that the existing Terra network is in existence - or, at the time this proposal is formally adopted - whichever comes first.
Holders of UST (problematic debt) can be airdropped USDC/USDT based on an earlier snapshot - if the desire is to avoid gaming of the airdrop by whales.
There is no reason (related to gaming, etc) to assign native terra assets based on an earlier snapshot. If users made market decisions (dumping native Terra assets fleeing, OR buying native Terra assets to support the network), those decisions ought to be respected.
Snapshot for holders of UST
Consider airdropping USDC/USDT funds only to addresses who held UST: (a) at an earlier snapshot, AND (b) at the latest snapshot.
This ensures that only people who held UST throughout the turmoil get rewarded, and we don’t double reward people who already dumped their UST for USDC/USDT.
Furthermore, with the amount of uncertainty in the current environment, it’s super unlikely that whales (even now) would have take this proposal seriously enough to split their holdings into multiple wallets. Is there any evidence of this occurring? It should be straightforward to check the blockchain history. If it’s not happening, even for the “earlier snapshot”, we should use the latest snapshot possible.
People who tried to save Terra
Regarding the USDC/USDT airdrop for UST holders, we need to be careful not to reward people who held UST at the time of the attack and dumped UST as the spiral got worse.
Also, it’s important to reward UST holders who brought capital into the Terra system as the attack worsened. That is, those people who bought UST hoping to restore the peg. These people may have bought UST, or other assets on Terra, by pumping new funds into the network. If possible, we should not ignore them, and they should be rewarded.
Contracts holding aggregated user funds
Kinetic and Mars contracts (amongst others protocols) held aggregated user funds in smart contracts. What about the users who deposited funds into those protocols?
UST holders off chain
What about people who held UST off-chain on other networks / on CEXs?
7 Likes
Many ways to do it, the challenge is both at the funding level and identifying the legit ust holders.
Also many way could be studied to do it here is one I’d like to submit :
Provided funding would be found and legit holders identified,
1/ Adapt the chain and anchor to host bridged centralized backed stablecoin (busd, usdc, other) that would be willing to assist the terra ecosystem, should that be a bridged centralized stable coin or even a new stablecoin backed by physical dollar, even by a SEC approved or any legit institution, it could even be with Binance and CZ, (why not ?!) I know this part sucks, it’s a centralized leg, picture it as the little wheels on the child’s bike.
2/ grant/airdop/swap amount of new stable coin to legit holders BUT lock it in anchor with no other promises but restoring the UST peg progressively. Different unlocking amounts/level could be progressively adapted to not release all amount at once. Incentive : progressively grand an APY going from 1% to 4, 6, 8% depending on the progression of the peg stabilisation. The repartition would be the one stated in this proposal, it is absolutely striking when reading “With $1.46B, we will be able to refund 99.6% of all Anchor wallets” that this is the kind of move we need to restore confidence. I’d be personally totally ok to lock all the ust I lost for 6 months or a year with the promise of restoring their value.
At the same time, a new LUNA token must be created OR an enormous amount should be burned, then holders will be airdropped the new LUNA token at a decided rate.
Identifying the holders, in UST and LUNA, could be and averaging between the state before the attack and a “last 1st era state block”.
This “Last 1st era state block” would be determined after an announced “migration period” after which everyone would have taken back all luna and ust asset back to the chain. This Migration period should be long enough to allow everyone to be aware of this and take necessary actions. We have to cover every blind spot.
This is all brainstorming, I’m not pretending holding THE solution, I’m just bringing my stone,
Hang in there. Let’s bond. It’s difficult, it will be energy, but let’s not leave the momentum die (or whatever is left of it).
2 Likes
UST holders off chain
What about people who held UST off-chain on other networks / on CEXs?
If we announce another snapshot, to average amount between the two snapshots, we can leave time for holders to migrate their asset back on the chain.
In a sense, even people willing to buy UST at 0.09$ right now are taking (willingly or unwillingly) a huge risk but that would stil act as holding and therefore supporting UST and Terra back to peg.
The airdrop could as well be received by Exchanges if they are keeping UST on the chain. (In an exchange terra wallet).
2 Likes
Agreed. Is this the official vote just by noting agree/disagree here or is there a poll somehwere?
2 Likes
Maybe it would be safe to get this reserve converted to dollar backed asset,
Again I know it sucks but we may need to temporarily go “centralized mode” to be able to bootstrap the ecosystem while encouraging / compensating / repaying holders.
1 Like
You should move it to the terrastation wallet to have small chance if they do it. I believe it’s the only place they can do a proper snapshot
Thank you for your ideas regarding the snapshot, guys.
When I posited my proposal I carefully considered several angles. There are some complications with a few of the ideas mentioned.
There are two stakeholders even within the Anchor savers sub-group who need to be saved:
- some people were “loyal” (not ascribing moral value here, just a term) and held through the entire fiasco
- some people (understandably) panicked and sold their UST at various levels ($0.95, $0.5, some are even selling now at $0.1 to salvage what they can because they think it’s over)
I don’t believe either view is unreasonable and I don’t think either group should be punished. The idea of figuring out how much the second group sold their UST for is a bit silly too, because it mostly happened off-chain on exchanges and there is no way to track how much they made.
This is why the simplest and cleanest solution is to take a single snapshot at the time of the depeg and allocate everyone a refund allocation of their balance at the time, but they can only redeem the refund if they return their UST. This allows the ‘loyal’ holders to get a 1:1 refund, and the people who timed the market by panic selling will have to buy back UST in order to get their refund. People in the second group played the market, so obviously there will be some self-adjustment - people who made money selling will have to give it back by buying so there are no double-rewards.
The issue with using a ‘later snapshot’ eg. one taken today instead of a snapshot taken right at the depeg is because it will exclude people who sold UST from the refund. Both stakeholders should be included here. People who panic sold didn’t really commit a crime, they just did what they thought best at the time. They shouldn’t be given additional rewards (as the plan accounts for) but they shouldn’t be punished/excluded entirely either.
9 Likes
That is a very nice idea. Stablecoin used could be USDT bridged to terra bc or even several stablecoins to spread the risk.
Brackets could be adapted depending on the funding, but also maybe we could lock the repayment to make it higher the longer the fund stay lock, making all of this funds working for the community.
Let’s not talk 19% APY, but repegging ust for instance or other project funding like bootstraping Terra v2 for example.
My god this would prevent and would have prevented so many people to harm themselves…
2 Likes
I totally agree with you
1 Like
Hey guys,
Im a holder of Luna. Bought at 59.1$ as right before attack begins into deeply. Never sell it, and traded nor shorted. Also not stacked. As reading through social, I’m the most stupid one, that is still holding. It is still there in my spot account. Basically holding from last october. Switched over on march to avax, and moved back to luna at that day :_((
I beleived this ecosystem, crypto decentralization, the future of world’s financial core element is this. Not a print money.
Im not a trader, thats why I hold most of 99% times. And this is my life savings. Dont blame me, this is how me is.
Now I’m lost, disastrius condition.
I still hope you guys restore system as quickly as possible, and restore full funds as like as system before attack. Can proove my spot account. Its still there.
Still so sad, there was thought came into mind about suicide, but no, I will survive. Because of you, because it is not natural, it was planned attack.
Still holding my spot luna funds, that is bought before attack.
I hope help is on the way.
1 Like
Hello @FatMan , how do you think this could be ever approved if we don’t own the majority of UST? Isn’t there voting mechanism that is based on ANC?
In fact, the top 1% of investors might as well do the opposite of what you are proposing. Am I right?
I am not saying I disagree with your proposal, nor I want to criticize it. I am not familiar with the voting mechanism, so I am just genuinely asking: is there a way this could be ever approved?