I don’t have a Twitter. I think I’ll make one later on, but I don’t think it’s the best idea to edit it into the main post since I don’t want it to look like I’m advertising anything for my own benefit.
1 Like
Hope this passes. Had a good chunk of life savings on Anchor
1 Like
Nice! We have the richest man in crypto on our side and the wind in our sails.
@FatMan, Thanks for the proposal. The refund should include all small wallets: on/off-terra chain. Users were putting yield-bearing assets into anchor which was contributing the anchor’s yield. Users also were borrowing UST from anchor (using YB collateral assets), they were using the borrowed UST in different protocols on/off-terra chain.
Why should we exclude small wallets that were contributing to terra before the depegg in various protocols?
I hope @dokwon and LFG team review/feedback/endorse this proposal to make small wallets people (more than 80%) of terra chain whole.
I hope all the terra community, including, developers, Do kwon, LFG, TFL, etc… stay behind this project. We all learned from this in some way. And believe it possible to preserve a stronger community.
- Do kwon, LFG, TFL, being the drivers at the current time, need to endorse fairness and reestablish trust quickly.
- They need to establish a team to provide quicker feedback on various proposals.
2 Likes
This sounds like the only valid option
1 Like
I 100% agree.
Guys now CZ Binance mentioned about us on Twitter. He obviously wants to save UST holders first. Let him know about this thread!!! Retweet this tweet, let him know. Let’s make this happen!
2 Likes
I agree 100%
I wish this proposal should be voted for all UST/LUNAR holders.
1 Like
up for this proposal!
I am now aUST holder who still deposit UST in Anchor Protocol,
I don’t know what I should do for now.
Withdraw UST from Anchor and go to CEX to trade for Fiat and withdraw with nearly 90% lose,
or I should do nothing and wait for the fork of the Terra chain?
2 Likes
Totally agree.
I hope it goes through. Thanks FatMan.
1 Like
I agree on most apart from UST snapshot at the time de-pegging as its not the fairest mechanism. What if someone sold UST straight after de-pegging for lets say 90cents to a $ so this person will still get 1:1 USD compensation as they were in the snapshot however the person who bought UST at 90 cents after the de-pegging now holds the UST, which is worth less than 10cents. Hence the compensation for UST should be only given to current holders of UST and not related to snapshots as this will actually reward those who manage to exit the system early enough with minimal losses. @dokwon.terra
Completely agree with this; would allow the growth in numbers as the community is made up of allot of smaller members ; these themselves can cause a drive in market morale which could lead to speculators reentering
This is an amazing proposal that respects the vast majority of users who put a large proportion of their net worth in what they believed to be a stable asset. Large investors with millions and billions invested should be well diversified and this mistake will only cost them a small proportion of their portfolio.
Unfortunately I believe the BTC in reserves is gone. The investors who provided it saw their Luna they got in exchange for it vaporized and I find it hard to believe they simply shrugged and said “oh well”. Probably something in the initial agreement or threats of legal action that would permit them to seize the collateral. Just speculating, but it’s telling that it wasn’t mentioned at all in Do’s restructuring proposal.
1 Like
I am in this position. I tried to hold on, but panic sold my life savings at 27c. I’m totally crushed. Really appreciate these proposals. Thank you
Do or LFG still cannot explain where the BTC reserve goes…
I don’t think they use all of them for MM to buy UST back, where is the rest of BTC!
Agreed
I moved my family’s savings into a Curve pool of UST/otherStables on AVAX, and held the token during the crash, even as everyone else was using that pool to swap into USDC and USDT. It was supposed to be my safe storage for that money, and now all the liquidity I have left is in UST. Which is fine, if the goal is to slowly and surely restore the peg via some means. To include this proposal.
If you do some sort of snapshot on the Terra chain to try to restore certain wallets, we’re saying the ripple effect over time is that UST moves back toward the peg because of the value of UST on Terra, right?
Or are you saying “all previous UST will be wiped away or abandoned, and new USTv2 will be issued, making every USTw on other chains worth exactly $0.00”? That is not a proposal that restores faith or foundation, least of which for the people who held UST on other chains, or tried to support the ecosystem by trusting their life savings to UST on those chains.
Recommend the focus be on collateralizing whatever UST can be collateralized on chain, and then however it’s redistributed, the liquidity on other chains will eventually be tradeable again (even with a temporary lockout?) for the reestablished price.
Someone tell me that’s what’s being suggested here. Right? Any clarification on how pooled tokens would be affected is helpful.
I also don’t understand this supposed “anti-rich” sentiment for “big wallets.” I was funneling a whole life savings for a family of 5 into stablecoins and UST, to keep it stable and decentralized. This idea that “because it was a lot of money, he must have a lot more,” is ludicrous - that was (and is, I still hold all that UST) basically all I have, meant to be “safe” from the financial world of big banks.
If the proposal is “everyone of any size wallet over 50k will just get their UST wiped and then reissued 50k,” to include other chains (how?), then please…no? I’ll be able to salvage more of my family’s life savings by selling my current UST at $0.15, and hopefully not have to start over. But I want to keep holding UST, if this proposal is “we’ll restore UST to small on-chain wallets, and that will start to make the UST tied up in other pools and chains closer to peg once again.” You can’t just abandon current UST that’s all out there, condemning everyone to $0 who’s trying to keep some value in the ecosystem.
Hello, thank you for this answer and this latest update.
For me, the indication of the mechanism to avoid double expenditure is missing.
Example a dedicated page where the user will have to connect with his TERRA address to find the amount of aUST of the snapshot before Depeg then “return / redeposit” the aUST still in possession (all or partially if they have sold in the meantime on a CEX)
This solution is not perfect but as we are unable to know if the person will have sold at 0.97 or 0.20 for example… we cannot afford to pay everything without taking it into account. Including a mechanism to “re-deposit” the aUST will avoid double-spending and will limit the amounts spent to repay
1 Like
I don’t agree with refunding current holders 1:1. Here are my two primary reasons.
- People who understandably panic sold their holdings at $0.50 or $0.10 would get screwed over despite depositing money at a 1:1 USD:UST ratio. They would get nothing.
- This scheme would massively reward people who bought UST on the open market for pennies on the dollar. This group would be more weighted towards speculators and whales rather than the average person who lost their savings.
I think the superior solution is giving everyone a refundable balance based on their balance on Terra at the time of the depeg, but making sure that they return the UST in order to get the USDC. This strikes a balance where people who panic sold don’t get screwed over but also don’t get heavily double-rewarded since they still need to buy back the UST in order to get the refund. Granted, some people will make additional profits and some will make additional losses, but that is the nature of the market and nothing can really be done about that. The alternatives are worse. Put simply, this is the lesser evil.
This could be right, but I don’t think so. Of course, much of this is pure conjecture because we don’t actually have details about what happened to the LFG funds. Personally, I believe a lot of it should be intact. If Do Kwon spent the money, it would have gone to either buying up LUNA or UST. It couldn’t be LUNA because he was actively encouraging LUNA’s supply to inflate away. I don’t think it was UST because surely he would have announced that “we are deploying hundreds of millions to save the UST peg”, which would have propped up the peg much better. The money is probably still there IMO.
I’m moving into complete speculation territory here, but I’ve been formulating a weird theory. It’s possible that Do Kwon is intentionally FUDding UST in order to get people to sell it at a much lower debt ratio to reduce overall overhang. He might be buying it up for pennies on the dollar, and when he announces that the reserve is intact and will be used to defend the peg, it would be a lot easier to repeg UST to $1 given that he has bought a lot of the supply cheap and cleared out the debt. (Please, no one take this seriously as it’s completely an offhand theory that probably isn’t true!)
It would be an interesting way to clear out UST debt for sure, but it would still screw over a lot of holders who were coerced into dumping their savings below peg. This is why I still think my proposal of a capped refund is the superior solution. Hey, something tells me a lot is going to be made clear in the next few days.
4 Likes
Holders of ust must be compensated, but not in the first place. My analysis is as follows:
- If all resources are used to repay ust holders, it is batch liquidation. After the repayment is completed, the terra ecology is dead.
- I think our primary goal is to restore the ecology of terra. Terra has enough developers and community bases, and after Terra is resurrected, it will use ecological funds to repay ust’s debt. Only then can we fully restore terra.