Voting here or using the on-chain governance mechanism is irrelevant to this proposal.
A proposal like this can only be enacted by TFL unilaterally because it concerns their funds. And they will only enact it if they:
1. See it, first of all! 2A. Understand and agree with the reasoning behind it voluntarily, or 2B. Are pressured by enough people or by law enforcement.
Continue getting the word out. We already have support from @cz_binance, @VitalikButerin, and @Maxwell_Maher. Voting here or in Terra Station is irrelevant to this. We have to make TFL acknowledge us and acknowledge their responsibility.
I’d like to add that users holding UST in short farm contracts on Mirror should be included in the repayment scheme, and not be overlooked. They hold collateral debt positions and sold short mAssets for UST in order to maintain peg close to oracle price. Shortly before the depeg, TFL developers passed an immediate update incentivizing short farming on Mirror via governance poll 273.
However, this contract migration instead drained the contract of UST and led to the freezing of capital of Mirror users and those of Aperture Finance whose contracts operate a delta-neutral strategy on top of Mirror.
The lock contract for short farming, (terra169urmlm8wcltyjsrn7gedheh7dker69ujmerv2) that is meant to hold the user’s UST for 2 weeks time before release, or allow users to unlock their UST if they close the collateral debt positions they used to sell short, is now empty.
I think all action and platform related with UST should be sum under the same address and relief.
If UST is stable on Anchor, it should be stable on Mirror, Spectrum, Aperture as well.
Every UST holder should be treat equally, at least for protocol under the Terra blockchain.
I agree with this proposal . People who owned UST are basically treating it as a savings account because they know it is not going to 2x or 5x, it basically should have been pegged to 1USD. But rather, people who invested on LUNA is just an other crypto or equity where it can 5x or -5x, which is expected just like any other stock or even SPY. So UST are termed savings but LUNA is investment. Both are two different things.
If tomorrow Apple crashes to 0USD no one can ask the company to return their money because that is an possibility.
So I would say UST holders should be returned whole citing they did not expected any profits on it, they just parked their savings here just like any other bank’s savings account. Anchor was said to be one of the blue chip savings protocols and there are companies like Stablegains leveraging it to park their customers savings as UST which are at stack today.
I really think this is the only solution to contain the damage that has been caused to thousands of families. I hope this proposal is getting visibility (I think Do Kwon shared it on Twitter, but I am not sure). Anyway, I’m not sure if there is a chance to go to a vote unless TFL allows it first.
If it goes to court that is what will happen. The courts aren’t going to cherry pick and give you all the money. They’re going to fairly distribute it to everyone.
To be clear, I want to make sure this proposal includes all those who were holding UST on an Anchor-based system (Stablegains/Alice) at the time of the de-peg. These platforms were locked up in the early stages of the attack and by the time you had the option to send UST to Terrastation or an exchange, the network was halted and trading pairs on multiple exchanges were inactivated and then intermittently reactivated within the last 48 hours.
@Filip_Calangiu I commented the same thing so many times, but been ignored. Apparently, it’s ok to reward those that left first and screw the ones that tried to hang on til as much they could before they were left with almost nothing. @Oak If this proposal gets approved as written, everyone will be buying up UST which will increase the price for those who already lost out a lot and will continue to lose a lot if they don’t buy it in time. I think the proposal should add that for folks that already sold out, show proof (can easily be done) of the sale price and give back the difference. How hard is that?
I think the burn fee and remedy fee on transactions is a way to go as a mi-term/long-term solution that will regain the trust in the ecosystem and make it grow in the long term
You will never be able to burn enough fees to get the UST peg back to 1:1. If the fees were high enough to support this, no one would be making transactions. This is basically a pipe dream in my opinion.
