Hi, I’m in the same situation but with “only” 10714 ust that I moved from Anchor to Binance during the shitshow, feverishly hoping it would repeg to 1 usd (as it was advertized then) and I could get my funds back, while things settle. I’d been staking on Anchor for months. I sold nothing, bought nothing more, the sum is the exact same. I’m wondering if I should move the Ust back to Terra wallet right now since the blockchain has resumed and it’s the exact same number I had staked. If you or anyone has advice, it is welcome. Hang on guys, we may get through this with this kind of proposal. Courage, and much love to those in distress right now, like I am . there’s a light…
This is okay but what about people holding UST on centralised exchange such as FTX exhange. Any snapshots of Terra Blockchain will not be captured from my holdings on FTX. Can the main centralised exchanges provide details of small size wallets holding UST so we can hope to get some portion back too?
1 Like
Please retweet my tweet to cz_binance regarding the proposal. Maybe he can indeed influence Do Kwon to do the right thing. tweet
1 Like
First off, thank you for writing this proposal. It is probably one of the best perspectives I’ve read in a long time in this space. You certainly have your eye on the ball here with priority and what is important versus what is urgent. Thank you!
1 Like
Thanks, retweeted. Maybe also share in the Dokwon’s proposal thread as well?
1 Like
Please make sure to include people who used other dapps in the ecosystem and off chain holding luna/UST/aUST. For example, I was using aperture finance. Will I be included in the snapshot.
2 Likes
I think this is the most fair proposal.
Yes, I strongly agree with both changes.
Without a per-wallet cap, you end up with what feels like an unfair situation where the people just below the cutoff get made 100% whole, and those just above it get 0%, even if the difference between the two wallets is pennies.
Osmosis, Juno, Mirror LPs were providing benefit to the community (and were the exit liquidity for those who got out unscathed) and deserve to be included.
Thanks for your work on this
Does anyone know how many UST could get burnt after the helping UST repeg proposal comes into effect in 4 days? And there is another proposal to burn UST in incentivize pool, still pending for pass the threshold. If let’s say it can reduce UST supply by 50%, then Luna only needs to double from here to reach the repeg?
“Also, people who bought UST after the depeg would not count in the refund group for obvious reasons.”, Kinda disagree with this one, i think take snapshot of all UST holder (in anchor, dex or cex etc…) at the last halt, which where the pegging mechanism(burn ust mint luna) were stopped. people who buy UST before the last halt to me considered defending the UST
AFAIK, the UST burnt mechanism is halted now, no more LUNA can be minted right now
Please correct me if my information is wrong
1 Like
Agree. It is the realistic solution to solve the problem.
Agree
Thanks guys - I think there is general consensus surrounding the three major changes. In a little bit I’ll edit them into the main post for visibility.
3 Likes
Hello Fatman,
It’s great sharing ideas with you, thank you for time.
While you are focusing on not punishing people who panicked sell when I put the priority on those who kept the faith on Terra ecosystem and did not participated in the selling pressure. We need people with strong conviction to rebuild and substain the ecosystem. The HOLDERs are the heros, they deserve our respect in my humble opinion.
We all agree that when you panick-sell, you sell immediately.
I’m not sure that we’ll have enough fund to refund everyone, let’s be fair and honest.
- I think that the HODLERs should be the ones to be refunded first.
- Your idea (with or without my formula).
2 Likes
In my view there are two very reasonable responses to the event. Do Kwon told everyone on Twitter to hang on tight and said there was a plan to repeg and recollateralize UST, so people who did nothing and kept their funds in Anchor weren’t wrong. There was also a fairly obvious LUNA-UST death spiral that was getting worse by the hour as the UST price slowly walked up and down being drained of all value, so people who panic sold on exchanges also had a reasonable position as there was no real viable way for 8-10 billion to suddenly rush in to defend the entire peg directly on the market.
I don’t think the two groups should be pitted against each other. I would put them at an equal priority level. That’s why I would set the snapshot at the first depeg block so that everyone who had money in Anchor then would be at the same refund priority level. The clause about returning your UST will be in your favour since you have it just sitting there - those who sold will have to rebuy it on the market to ameliorate the double-reward problem. Hopefully this makes sense.
5 Likes
That’s a good proposal, maybe just include multiple snapshots from the depeging event start - like 3 of them, for every additional day. Conditions: the wallet had to hold aust at the moment of first snapshot in order to be counted with the second and third as well and amount held at the first snapshot is the max amount of aust that will be taken into account for a refund.
If the wallet is included in all snapshots they get refunded more than someone who was only on the first snapshot (cause they withdrew and panic sold anyway).
Example:
If womeone had 1000 ust in anchor at snapshot 1, 2, 3 (they didnt withdraw and sell for 3 days at least) they get 1000 usdc as a refund.
If someone held 1000 ust in anchor at snapshot 1 but nothing on the snapshot 2 and 3, they get 3333 usdc refunded (they most likely sold the remainder when they withdrew anyway and will actually break even like that).
That way original investors (the one mentioned in your proposal) will get compensated fairly and it will eliminate double earnings (if they withdrew the first day they most likely secured 70%~ of holdings, no need for a 100% repayment, 33% is enough). More people will actually break even that way and less people will actually make profit that way - more money distributed to more people.
2 Likes
hope in this proposal
I agree here. I believe the small investors should. I compensated before the large investors. I pray this passes for me and my family
1 Like
I don’t like assuming that people who withdrew UST off-chain at X time sold at Y price and should receive a (1-Y) refund. Surely there are people who withdrew and still have their UST sitting on an exchange. There are too many assumptions we have to make.
I prefer one snapshot, and people who moved UST off-chain after that have to put it back regardless of whether they sold it or not. This seems not only easier to handle but more fair and makes no assumptions about what they did with the tokens.
4 Likes