Duncan please can you clarify the liability Re wLuna?
wLunawant nothing to do with Classic, they want Luna sue to the price difference and TFL. So why would we agree to extract X value from the chain over two plus years to line their pockets? They could just as easily unwrap now and get into the same bit as us.
I’m struggling to see the benefit to Terra Classic save for charity here tbh.
Going down and addressing comment of comment.
We really wants buy-back Kwonzi(TFL) free tokens? When we can put 100%-tax for this wallets.
We really wants buy-back anoter 50% 1:1? When we can use 90%+ discount.
If you are OK with expropriation on billion dollar wallets, then you are OK with expropriation on a smaller degree. That is, if you want to burn all of LFG/Binance hot wallet, then vote for it, but don’t be surprised when 100% tax applies to you.
The only way around this is to generate value that exceeds the circulating supply, and then maintain that level for an extended period of time. In short, this means new money, and if you have spoken with anyone who is not invested in cryptocurrency, they will express anywhere from hesitation to outright contempt.
The chain only contains 10% of the circulating supply – how much of this is owned by “retail”? Without maintaining the $10B+ level with consistency, this thing will stay de-pegged for virtually forever.
Forking LUNC and new coin? This is like abandoning LUNC again like TFL. No way.
So a dangerous experiment to the LUNC chain, as I have been saying.
Unlimited LUNC versions? Why not keep one and actually improve it.
NO WITH VETO at this stage from me.
There is a mutual resolution here, which is to utilize Zaradar’s partitioning mechanism on-chain. That is, LUNC will share a pool with SZT in the form of Luna, meaning when market swaps are enabled, it exchanges individual Terra (eg USTC, KRTC) with individual or aggregate Luna (eg LUNC, SZT). Running a sidechain allows risk to be insulated, then the value can be rolled back up to Terra (LUNC).
The reason to utilize these kind of endeavors is because we have multiple countries with varying views on life, which extends to development practices, monetary policies, virtually anything you can name. You can have global monetary policy, but if not every country in TerraSDR is in agreement, then nothing will move forward. You must keep the baseline DAO interactions as lightweight as possible for this reason.
1.2% tax is contentious because every country in the world has scaled taxes and tax exemptions based on businesses. This does complicate tax code, which is, again, why you need to keep it lightweight and robust on the baseline, eg, 3 levers instead of 3^n levers. In computing, striving for time complexity O(1) is ideal. 1.2% tax creates a time complexity sqrt(n)^(1/n) where n = frequency of chain interactions. ie, it’s low overhead for users who interact maybe once a day, but it’s exponential overhead for high-frequency users – if I’m not running an algorithm that has efficient latency and calculations, then I’m just shooting myself in the foot. (and have been for months – I have traded a lot less thanks to the tax.)
For those reading who don’t know what time complexity is, it’s the amount of computation time an algorithm takes to complete it. For example, if I had a list of names that were random in order, and had to sort them alphabetically, how I sort that list matters. Do I pick all a-names, then b-names, etc., then sort them by group, then do it again? Or do I go down the list, find the first name to go the top, put it there, and then restart? You can read more here: Time complexity - Wikipedia
Now, JIL, if you want every country to be on board with Terra Classic, should they all abide by the same tax rate? That is, if I make $10B, I should pay 1.2%, and if I make $10, I should also pay 1.2%?
This is an equalizing tax style. Over a long enough period of time, the largest holders will have the largest holdings still, and the smallest holders will have the smallest holdings still. “All things equal.” Economically speaking, this is sqrt(n), and in order for users to accelerate past that, they need to reach n by inputting n^2.
You are welcome to vote as you wish, but the reason I put up (1/n) is to discuss it first. I welcome honest commentary, so long as it is productive.
I should begin by saying that you have done an extensive research into the chain and a lot of the things that I got to know from you and this proposal, are things I did not know about the chain before this. So I will compliment you for this work that you have done till now.
You have made yourself clear that this plan is no guarantee of a USTC re-peg. If that is so, then I have to look at this as a separate plan which concerns USTC and LUNC, but is not a direct implementation of a USTC re-peg plan from the current state of USTC as it stands. Instead, what we are trying to do here is buy back USTC by bringing capital back to the chain via different methods like the swap market module, WLUNA, and the additional forked chain.
Currently, I do not understand how this is not a “USTC re-peg plan.” I have seen this commentary several times. Working on the algorithm and encouraging businesses to onboard capital on-chain are both necessary things to do. For months, we have clamored for “utility,” and ignored the ones available to us (DEXs), because AMMs are for those who can understand the basics of options derivatives.
In fact, Terra’s market swap module is predicated on this idea (options derivatives/AMMs). In order to trade a penny to a dollar, you need to collect pennies to trade to a higher denom. That is to say, pennies to nickels, nickels to dimes, dimes to quarters, quarters to half dollars, and half dollars to dollars – then dollars to “double-dollars.”
This process is important to do because we have algorithmic dollars on-chain, but not algorithmic coins.
This is massive. I mean, risking approximately 1 billion dollars of investments for a chain which has been created in theory till now isn’t something I would support since this would require the entire team undertaking this endeavour to signing a letter of undertaking in which you guys have to undertake 1 billion dollars of liabilities if anything goes wrong. Only then can this be approved. There have already been two events in which extra coins were minted. We cannot afford such an event again. If we go ahead with such a thing, there will be a legal liability undertaken by the team which takes this up, otherwise they will be sued/reported for sure. There is no question about that.
In order to reach $10B + Oracle Yield of $10B annually, then some of that capital needs to be risked. In trading, a market-maker/taker may risk 10% of the portfolio. It makes more sense, in this regard, to risk $2.8M instead of the full $1M (0.01%, or 1 basis point) to achieve the highest margin possible. In that sense, your risk-on capital of 1 basis point ($2.8M) is the extent of liabilities. You hedge the remainder of the network’s value in less volatile assets, which is to say, virtually anything else you can think of.
Do not fork it at all with the current accounts. Fork it without accounts and create new accounts in the new fork. Do not migrate any resources from the old fork apart from the settings. That is a much better solution. I would not recommend applying any kinda migration functions on the current chain columbus-5.
Understandable. I have heard this critique and am willing to work with Zaradar to incorporate partitioned pools on-chain. All you would see, as a user using Station’s market swap tab, is an additional option to swap USTC et al for SZT.
The idea is to insulate the $2.8M of risk-on capital during this process from risk-averse investors. Currently, the idea is to utilize an opt-in/opt-out using governance. Since the token’s value (SZT) is intrinsically 0 and instantiated at the smallest denom available on a given chain (1e-18 for ETH), none, some, or all of the capital willing to go into SZT has an option to do so.
I do not think non-technical users understand the implication of this since it has been written in a technical way. To break this down in simple terms - the value of LUNC will fall by like, 10 times in one go. It’s basically an infusion of extra coins into the circulation. We all know what that results in. I get your point completely here and why you wanna do what you wanna do, but do you wish to do this during a time when the value of the coin is already less? Do you know how investors are gonna react if it falls by 5 or 10 times? They wouldn’t even know what hit them.
At this current point of time, we cannot bridge WLUNA back to LUNC. We will need to either wait this out, or even better, if you wish to bridge this to ziggy-1 and NOT columbus-5 I am completely fine with that. That will serve as your capital investment as well.
Sure, let me try and make it easier to understand. Please let me know when it needs to be done, it is a lot of information to digest on my end.
Firstly, after yesterday’s space, we have discussed a 28-35 day lead time to this proposal. 35 days is ideal, as some Cosmos chains utilize 28-day bonding periods (like Juno). We want 7 days of lead time to unstake and redelegate appropriately, then the latter 28 days to ensure that that process has already been done.
Second, as far as price impact of LUNC goes, this is something we can address. It is very possible this event can drop this back to pre-staking, pre-tax levels (about 1 kiloLUNC, or 0.0001). While the price may see a discount in the short-term, we may see large investors buy in and bond to the network. This is not a guarantee, but nothing in life is.
As far as wLUNA goes, this is something that be explained more easily for investors, but in short, wLUNA needs to be able to unwrap to LUNA.
This is a great idea and should be implemented before implementing the new market swap module cause this will be a lot safer than directly dipping into the CP to use for swaps. If the CP can be partitioned then that solves a lot of issues for the future as well.
I have spoken with Redline about implementing a weighted Luna index in the same way Terra’s index is weighted by fiat commodities. The market swap can then test swaps between Terra <> Luna using a Luna index instead of “just” Luna (in our case, LUNC).
I went through this and this is pretty good. I like the idea and this is definitely one way in which you can create stable coins. Yet again, I would advise doing this on a completely separate chain and NOT doing this directly with LUNC at first. If it works on a new chain, we can implement it on LUNC. This is at least what I think.
That is the idea (insulate investor risk). In the same way Ed wants to make an AI chain and drive value back to LUNC, the same idea exists with Ziggy. Ergo, we would like to test both partitioning on the Ziggy chain and on LUNC to ensure that it works, for one, but also give users something else to swap to besides LUNC.
I told you Agora is better. Now you got h a c k e d
Or I was being silly. Just kidding. I think I read one too many horror stories lately. Up late, little sleep, fresh copy of Eldritch anthologies by H.P. Lovecraft.
First, congrats on your research on this matter. Whatever the outcome will be, the learning process is always rewarding.
Since I believe that the UST repeg is a critical parameter for the revival of this chain I will say this, ask for help or even pay for help, not you but the community. We sit on a ~1B chain, we should act professionally and not be afraid of asking for help from experts.
The idea of the Ziggy chain is to do just that. There are a lot of roadblocks associated with high-risk ventures for the average user; just see how the US’ laws on accreditation block retail users from exotic investments without providing education from early days of school! (and I went to a nice school.)
First, if I remember correctly Do sometime in the near past commented that repeg of UST could be done but the hard part is how to keep it. Ask for help from TFL or even pay some developers to work on it. They have the expertise and the knowledge of the system and how it works, where the problems are, and probably they have done several brainstorming on this regardless of what some people from the community believe.
The point about “keeping it” is important to note here. On-chain, we currently have LUNC staking, providing liquidity in LPs (most of which have defunct assets at time of writing), and miniscule NFT spending (relative to total supply). SZT is intended to facilitate a wide variety of creatives to come on chain (not just gamers, or NFT makers, but I’m talking about anybody who has made anything, ever).
Second, contact Binance team. They are true supporters from the beginning. They run the best platform and control an enormous number of tokens. At least, they can consult us if the repeg is even possible, what the obstacles are, or/and if it is worth trying it.
I agree, though I have heard nothing directly from their accounts. My only liaisons are the L1 team and Telegram groups, who I can’t confirm if they have contact with them or not. In that sense, I will continue posting publicly and iterate on these to the best of my abilities.
It is a critical matter for this chain and does not need just a bunch of people to work on it and take the responsibility. Ask for help and if needed we should hire some people to work on it.
I want people to know what they will get if I hire a team and request funds. Ziggy passed with ~75% Yes if I remember correctly. While this qualifies as a supermajority, I am striving to get 99%+ of Terra Classic voters to agree with what I put forward. Alignment in decision-making on a global scale needs to meet this qualification. In my opinion.
I admit this is daunting.
but it seems to me profoundly different from the repeg proposal voted in February, I have to deduce that it has been abandoned or ?
In December, I suggested modifying the Oracle Exchange Rate, after the votes were aggregated. This developed into what I refer to now as “Lightband,” but it ultimately had to change because of Byzantine faults. (bad thing for crypto)
In February, the Ziggy ERM originally was an earlier iteration of Lightband. It also had some bits in the design that were difficult to implement. As such, it needed to be iterated on. The vote itself was mostly to collectively agree that we’d all work on USTC re-peg together under the name “Ziggy.”
As I understand at-present, forking the chain as ziggy-1 and stardust-1 might be difficult, at least for naming conventions. We can think of it as needing to do a grocery run – I forgot to purchase an important ingredient. I have committed to finishing this by the next halving, so I will do. It is challenging at this time to consider the algorithm on Chain 1 (LUNC), sandbox an innovation chamber on Chain 2 (Ziggy), then likely connect to some Chain 3 (LUNA, as I understand it).
- wLUNA not our problem
Where does LUNC’s runway come from?
I don’t believe LUNC Community is that stupid tbh. Repeg project from a guy who bankrupted on a 60,000 USD student debt and maxed credit cards? This is not someone who would be allowed anywhere around critical finance information, let alone algorithms that are supposed to steer a price of an asset. None of his business ideas to date have worked. Not to mention he is responsible for introducing the re-mint mechanism which eventually led to losing half of Binance partnerships worth.
Unfortunately, this not how our market works. I am sorry that you feel this way, but if you feel that you can do a better job, please do so! Taking cheap potshots is easy. Much harder to refrain from labeling me as autistic on Twitter and crossing your legs in the lounge.
Duncan please can you clarify the liability Re wLuna?
wLunawant nothing to do with Classic, they want Luna sue to the price difference and TFL. So why would we agree to extract X value from the chain over two plus years to line their pockets? They could just as easily unwrap now and get into the same bit as us.
I’m struggling to see the benefit to Terra Classic save for charity here tbh.
Any prudent investor would see several benefits to helping them, but let’s start with Liability.
Currently, wLUNA unwraps to LUNC. It does not unwrap to LUNA. This means any time someone unwraps, they are providing LUNC with additional runway, i.e., money. They are choosing to sacrifice the cost-benefit of waiting for “someone” to resolve this situation. For some reason, some people are exceptionally obstinate to allow them to unwrap to LUNA – if LUNC was a separate chain, then wouldn’t it make sense to simply say, “yes, please leave us alone?”
This hasn’t been done for 10 months, despite optics on it. So, allowing them to do this via a fork would allow them to unwrap.
Unfortunately, the wLUNA unwrap to LUNC means that those investors chose to support LUNC instead of LUNA, because unwrapping large amounts to LUNA would simply blow out supply and hurt investors there. That is to say, I estimate that they have invested roughly $2B into the LUNC chain to-date through unwraps.
These are, more or less, risk-free loans to us on LUNC. But just because it is “risk-free” doesn’t mean we should take it for granted. It is simply genial to facilitate bridging to them by paying their faith-loan back to the tune of the total amount invested ($2B) plus the aggregate interest over time, which I estimate to be 30% minimum to-date ($600M).
The $1B of partitioned value to LUNC via Ziggy is to provide one threshold of a reserve layer to LUNC. In order to have a 10B LUNC minimum, we need to do this. It is likely we have 6 different ones slated going forward (BTC, ETH, SOL, AVAX, ATOM, LUNA) and then at least 1 other one to facilitate these (eg LDO). If we partition $1B of value in each, we have $7B, with $1B in SZT. This leaves 2 spots open, which can be any coin. Due to the variety offered by SZT and the 2 extra slots, these can be rotated out based on market capitalization or ability to facilitate useful swaps of Terra <> Luna.
In short, what I really am saying is to let me do a sidechain to onboard new capital for the algorithm. I will then waive the first $1B of personal earnings, provided I reach that far, back to LUNC. I don’t see why this is contentious outside of using 1 basis point of runway as risk-on capital.
I love your research. I lost some my wealth iin ust crash but still after reading this i am still confident you can do it. Do this and make our community proud.
There is no growth without research and risk.
Do it.
Hey @wrapped_dday I forgot to ask about the team that you have mentioned here:
So… This is the final team? I mean, these people are in touch with you about this? Cause it sure looks like a unique team. Faffy is in this. Where is he? He’s around?
Sad but true Duncan. People dont get contracted on good will but based on their record and achievements. Sorry to say this but in your case you have delivered none despite having oportunities and platform for this in the past. The prospect of yourself using the grant you recieve to cover personal loans is too big of a risk to be allowed.
Seems this plan is Tobias idea/plan meaning worst path for the LunC IMO
Are you trying to pull an elaborate April Fool’s Week or something on us?
Cause the team members have Jacob AND Zaradar on the team. Are you sure about this? They agreed to working with each other for real?
But Z didn’t mention anything about working with Jacob in the AMA’s.
How come you’re against this proposal, Don? You usually support stuff that comes from “official” channels, and Duncan is soon going to be a part of the L1 team… Zaradar also expressed his support of this initiative, and has been working with Duncan on this latest iteration of Ziggy.
I’m not trying to troll you, I’m genuinely curious why you’re against this while at the same time supporting things like the Q2 spending proposal by TGF (which includes Ziggy into its roadmap/budget).
So… This is the final team? I mean, these people are in touch with you about this? Cause it sure looks like a unique team. Faffy is in this. Where is he? He’s around?
No. This is tentative and I wanted to be as thorough as possible for a Round 1. Amounts, signatories, etc., are not final.
And no. I am fairly convinced that whoever I am talking to is not who they say they are.
Sad but true Duncan. People dont get contracted on good will but based on their record and achievements. Sorry to say this but in your case you have delivered none despite having oportunities and platform for this in the past. The prospect of yourself using the grant you recieve to cover personal loans is too big of a risk to be allowed.
Logically, I do not disagree with you. The grant I “receive” in this instance is escrowed back into the protocol. I have iterated on many concepts since I arrived here. Does this specific one articulate how I use money to cover personal loans? How would you improve upon the concept?
Seems this plan is Tobias idea/plan meaning worst path for the LunC IMO
Why is that?
Once upon a time, Alex came up with the USTN plan… it was deemed demoniac cause included minting a pre-determined amount of LUNC.
By the same time, Z came up with the partitioned pool plan, that included no minting. Now all his work (and public conversations) are under fire and being disregarded.
What both have in common? Ex-Terra Rebels. So be prepared to suffer the same fate at the hands of fake Rabbi and his new comrades.
Once upon a time, Alex came up with the USTN plan… it was deemed demoniac cause included minting a pre-determined amount of LUNC.
By the same time, Z came up with the partitioned pool plan, that included no minting. Now all his work (and public conversations) are under fire and being disregarded.
What both have in common? Ex-Terra Rebels. So be prepared to suffer the same fate at the hands of fake Rabbi and his new comrades.
That is the burden we must bear. Better to have strived in vain than not at all.
The spend proposals on L1 work - (either I agree or not with the minute details - amounts/participants/detailed work being done etc) are in the scope of this chain getting the upgrades and allowing us to move further with onboarding more capital.
Yet, Ziggy - as it was initially proposed - did make no mentions of pulling a fork and having a dedicated gaming chain. (The multipart chapter back in January or so)
Not to mention - the team that has been proposed leaves me puzzled. LUNCDao? Alex?
I mean, I get the underlying motivation - the end goal is to get the capital to eventually peg and reduce the supply and so on and so forth.
Just the method chosen is a 180 of what I intially expected and had hype for.
And it seems that Duncan hasn’t exactly communicated this plan with all the team members beforehand. RedLiner will move on with his idea as Ziggy or partitioned pools will not exactly overlap, yet the idea was - as I understood - to have all the different parties together and meld their ideas into one, definitive solution (if possible).
I suppose I’m bit taken a back on it?
去做吧，，我支持你，高风险高回报，顶不住风险不配拥有暴富
I have a different kind of question that you have partially addressed in your paper.
You have noted and shared with us that the Terra Foundation owns and operates the current Terra Luna Classic Community. So legally, we already have an owner, or as far as I understand.
Now the question is different - are you looking at working on legalities for either Ziggy, Stardust or UST to separate it from TFL? Or are you doing this so that UST can be retained with TFL? Or are you not working on the legalities part at all (for now)?
I am also asking you this because to fork the chain next time, I would personally like to see some kinda liabilities associated to this operation so that if anything goes wrong, the development team has to pay back to the community pool whatever losses we make. You are aware about the UST minting issue that happened last time. We need to account for such things in the future even if I am the one who is doing this.
This is our responsibility towards the chain.
Actually I was confused to read this at first but this can be the very first step to untangle the things ahead. Then I’m really curious about the rest of the plan further.
Yes in my Vision Plan everyone across the world pays the 1.5% tax (1.2% burn tax and 0.3% to fund the chain) if they interact with LUNC on-chain. Then exempt dapps from tax to incentivise utility and overall volume and push for off-chain burns. My plan is simple, with the core hinging on attaining the 1.2% burn tax off-chain by community pressure, exchange wallet whitelisting, and deposits to the exchange exempt from on-chain tax if possible.
With the 1.5% on-chain tax applying its own pressure on the internals of exchanges wallets, incentives we offer and community pressure, achieving the 1.2% off-chain burn tax is achievable, and is the true path for LUNC to $1+ by mass burning of the supply that I believe in.
My plan is simple and easy to understand, does not involve removing the burn tax, numerous forks of LUNC, a new token, complex algorithms, and does not have the catastrophic risk of our investments going to z-ero that your plan proposes, which I mentioned in my first comment here.
For these reasons and more I oppose your plan and believe in my own. As you mentioned the 1.2% burn tax in your response to me, which is part of my Vision Plan, I gave this explanation, otherwise I won’t go off-topic here and leave it to your proposal.
Without LFG wallets, we can rebuy 90%~ of supply in 0.02-0.1 range.
Please stop this tasteless joke, this post was started with the sole purpose of proposing something totally absurd and intricate with the sole purpose to induce investors to sell all their lunc tokens, it’s not serious…
Fair enough, I’ve seen this complaint brought up by multiple people now.
I was thinking if we use partitions instead of a fork you can actually tie Duncan’s, Zaradars and mine together. It would also mean all transactions stay on the Terra Classic network.
So that could still be done if that what people want, they don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
