If this was one holder, Then Binance already has an issue trading LUNC as they do not have any LUNC liquidity in their system.
So makes more sense that this is their main wallet consisting of all their customers holdings. Also we already know that’s the case as all their transactions are OFF chain. Meaning they are not done via on chain wallets. That’s how they get their transaction fees and we don’t currently get any tax from trades on Binance or any other exchange.
Plus you remember that tidbit of news from Coinbase not too long ago regarding if they ever went bankrupt you’re holdings are not technically in your wallet so they could be at risk for loss.
Plus if, IF, they did somehow move all these tokens to Staking, it’s an on chain transaction and that would means 20+ Billion tokens get burned.
Do you actually think the validators that are currently out there will attack anytime soon? Orion makes decisions based on their own community polls within their system, they do not make a vote without the community. If they did, their 14% power would drop to nothing. 60 days no new validators, attacks can be fixed in 7. So yes i am not changing what i said. The goal is to bring lunc back to life asap. Then theres plenty of time to figure out a good proposal to prevent these attacks moving forward. He probably already has one put together waiting for this one to pass so he can push it out for voting. One step at a time.
I happen to disagree with you - I guess I can leave it at that.
I would like to ask, if you believe POS is such a horrible system, have you put in a governance discussion leading to a proposal to change it (of course this would need to be a new chain that reloads transactions onto the new chain)?
I personally have gotten to know one of the two developers that you refer to, who is part of Terra Rebels, who has a background in blockchain and fintech - unless you can provide information to the contrary, I am inclined to believe him (since I have seen nothing to hint at anything but integrity from his character).
I can agree that validators have had a hand to play in what we have all been experiencing, but I choose to focus on making validation (whether of the current validators or future validators or both) an experience that is both community driven, as well as being profitable enough to be an incentive to validate - that to me grants the greatest protection to the network side of the blockchain. I would only ask that they do not break with the theory of proof-of-stake, since I believe that would infact introduce new and subtle vulnerabilities into the model. I think you have already read my thoughts on that, and my follow up notes in the following two comments after that one. I am thankful that the current validators are taking a hand in finally turning this situation around, and righting this wrong.
The person I was talking about in my comment, that I have come to know, is @raider7019 .
I just realized that it is you terrafried … Minus the toxic language and behavior here - I have always found you helpful, and with a desire to change things for the better, and someone who can have good humor. I do understand that you, and many, have been hurt by the actions of TFL, and at least in the part that has dealt with blocking governance at a time that dealt with a vote on the future direction of the project, which was not appropriate, the part the validators played in, or at least went along with, that were part of the overall situation we find ourselves in. And, to be fair, I do think it right to acknowledge that some individual validators may have found themselves put in a difficult situation, and some truly believed that they were doing something was was protecting the network.
I for one wondered where you went when where you were helping with Terra Rebel’s efforts on the systems side - I missed seeing you around. I have seen that you have started your own effort. I agree that I have run across some sexualized posts (outside of the dev channel on the server I believe), which were not appropriate. But the moderators on that site seem to be pretty helpful - it is difficult to have a community that large and not have something that comes across that is less than appropriate.
Hello akisan, thank you for your thoughts and would welcome some of your constructive ideas, at the moment we see proposal after proposal when all efforts should be concentrated on getting Luna Classic above the water line and floating. I’m sorry if I’m wrong I know nothing on how this all works but to build anything it needs to be a process, think of it like building a house get the main structure in place eg- floor. walls. roof, windows and doors …when that’s all done then move the furniture around.
I hope I haven’t offended anyone and if I’m way off the mark I apologise.
Hi @KonstantinB2S while you have changed your position, I do feel that your concerns regarding an attack from existing validators is a valid one. However, there are a couple of issues I see with capping the voting power to 20% per validator:
CosmosSDK does not support this natively so the timeline to implement this is unknown at the moment
Even if it were to be implemented, there is nothing stopping 4 validators from colluding to get 80% voting power
A possible workaround to this could be to limit the number of active validator set. Currently, the max validator number is set to 130, however, only 95 are active and only 87 have stake greater than 0.01%. The max validator number could easily be reduced to exclude validators with negligible (<0.1%) to no stake as they have very little incentive to support the network. This can be fairly implemented via a parameter change proposal. The max validators can be increased again in the future when the network becomes more stable.
Long story short, the USTC bad debt needs to be cleared via external USTC buyers injecting new capital into USTC + mint/burn of USTC into LUNA. I feel like the community has not arrived at a consensus around this topic.
For this to happen, there need to be some structural changes, like expanding the number of decimal points available …
It is valid and in the event of a bad player a dev will also have certain tools at hand to prevent it. Thongs like a chain halt for example. It’s extreme but there.
Also the chances of someone attacking with malicious intent is while not zero imo close to it as they would also be hurting themselves. In this case a hard fork would solve that problem and the “bad player” wod find himself left out and loose everything.
I have come along way and understand YES there is risk here. Imo there’s more risk if we do nothing though. It’s time to rip the bandage off.
Thanks to @aeuser999 & @raider7019 for helping me understand even better. That was a great chat and hope to have more soon.
This could be counter productive as yes you give more weight to the smaller validator’s but that becomes negated as the bigger ones also gain more too.
I suspect once you open up to the masses in 60 days after re-enabling staking, I think those numbers will fill up fast and balance will be restored.
Alternatively could you not add a second proposal allowing for 33 new validators to enter before the 60 days? This way you can fill it up faster.
I don’t know how difficult that would be and how to decide. First come first serve or a lottery system would be the only ones I could think of.
I just realized that the algostable is technically completely solvent now ($400m USD of LUNC market cap vs USTC market cap of $70M).
So mint/burn can go ahead as planned.
However, we need to discuss reserve diversification (I’d say 50-65% BTC collateralization), as well as pro-rata usage (1% of BTC deployed to defend peg for ever 1% drop in the LUNC price, in a recovered token framework). This was the key mistake that Kwon & co made
This needs to be done via smart contract. Reserve deployed 100% on-chain. No CEX games.
When USTC market cap >> LUNC market cap, the system was insolvent, because liabilities (USTC) exceeded assets (LUNC).
“Burning LUNC” was completely pointless as long as USTC market cap exceeded LUNC market cap. It would mean that as LUNC was burned / USTC was minted, and the USTC was then dumped, hyperinflation of LUNC would ensue, both tokens would gradually deathspiral to zero
However, with LUNC market cap now far in excess of USTC market cap, arbs can easily retire USTC at the current USTC/LUNC exchange rate, clearing the bad debt and making the algostable functional again.
I think we should choose multiple reserve diversification with maximum one currency cap 10 % ( wBTC 5 - 10 % wETH 5 - 10 % etc. depends on proposal diversification scale voted by community)
