My question would be for people like myself. I have some funds parked in Anchor still… I also however have UST sitting on Kucoin. I withdrew UST from Anchor for the Otherside landsale on Ethereum. Failed on that mint and then sent funds back to Kucoin where I converted to UST. Life happened and my UST sat on the Kucoin exchange. But an old Anchor snapshot from late April would show I had the funds and I can prove from Kucoin that my UST sat there pre Depeg.
To be honest, I had more Luna than UST but I think UST holders should be prioritized here. Because UST was marketed to be the stablecoin and Luna price would never have gone that high without the UST adoption.
On the other hand, the design of Luna is to absorb the volatility in UST and it did exactly what it was designed.
5 Likes
Good plan
And right now, AMMs just dumped 9**bn LUNA per minute and shattered the $0.0003,.00025, and .00022 resistance bands.
UST is about to eat shit again.
Rip. Below 0.17 for UST. We had restored it to over .25 earlier today.
support
How about
Luna holders - 1:1 exchange based on the snapshot before depeg
UST holders - Give option between USDC payback or staked UST of the new mainnet
USDC payback has a cap
If sb paid back by USDC, no right to be airdroped staked UST
Give lock period by each amount range
1 Like
I pray to god there’s no new mainnet.
Why do people keep suggesting this? The paperhands will immediately detonate it and you won’t have people like me to jump in and scoop the debt.
No. On the contrary UST by design was bound to fail and so it did. Everyone knew such high interest rate to large amount of lenders is not sustainable, against small borrowers paying much lower interest rates. Even a nursery kid can understand this.
On the other hand Luna is the token made to support the blockvhain and its projects. Investors in Luna were there for the project and to support it, not to just milk it like UST investors.
So overall UST was always bound to fail and Luna was not supposed to fail.
So the project should support back Luna investors which in turn supported the project, and not the opportunist UST investors.
1 Like
We need to fix both sides. This isn’t a one or the other sort of gig. Everyone here lost.
Edit: Holy shit, Coinbase is exploding. Over 21bn volume for wLUNA atm. we might be defending a second attack here rn. This is big confidence in our economy.
If UST by design was bound to fail then LUNA was bound to fail too.
I don’t deal well with BS but please go back and read the mint/burn of LUNA to keep UST pegged. If UST were bound to fail, LUNA would have zillions of supplies and the token price would be $0 anyways.
My thoughts… on why this is aimed at UST holders… (although it may be biased as a pure UST holder.) Is that I bought into a stable coin. Sure Anchor gave some yield but other than that there was no upside. Luna holders had the opportunity to profit from the blockchains success and also receive things like airdrops that UST holders did not. Luna holders also knew they where buying a volatile asset. UST holders like myself did not sign up for that. Sure everything has risks but we also didnt gain previous mentioned upside potential like Luna holders. I would gladly take reimbursement for only initial deposits forgoing Anchor yields. I would even fight for any Luna holders initial investment being reimbursed but not gained upside as that would be fair.
1 Like
Luna was designed to eat shit and recover, then stabilize UST.
So now look at my initial comment. That’s why both investors needs to be treated equally. Not one over the other.
People have lost wealth in both.
1 Like
This is wrong on so many levels. Anyways if you listen to Do Kwon’s interviews, read the tweets, and information put out from LFG you’ll see that the bitcoin reserve is explicitly for the purpose of protecting the UST peg. End of story. No matter how you try to argue it, LUNA was a speculative altcoin designed to inflate in defense of UST, which was a savings vehicle, and your side will lose when this goes to court. The best LUNA holders can expect is shares of LUNA v2 on the new chain if it ever comes.
2 Likes
Yeah, me too. But $50B is not going to come out of nowhere, and there should be prioritization when it comes to repayment structure.
Hi FatMan, do you also plan to include Pylon users because our funds are vested through Pylon but eventually deposited in Anchor, thanks!
$50B can be easily achieved through price leverage with incoming funds at $50-$1000 per user.
Neither am I interest in BS of UST investors promoting each other.
Go look at the basic model of UST, how it paid such high interest rates without any backing and was bound to collapse and so it did.
Luna is the token for the block chain and block chain is the fundamental which is supposed to survive. It is the main token.
Prioritisation should only be based on smaller investors to higher. It should be based on loses to investors.
Not based on who invested in UST or who invested in Luna. Simple.
1 Like
Luna volatility was how UST provided 20% returns sustainably to begin with, as far as I can see.