Liquid matters because you have to exchance big volume. But when you use maximum possible markets it does not matter. You never know what happen in crypto world today. I think this will create really super strong reserve assets. Some markets looks like they fall fast as ETH and BTC do even faster, some of them stays stable. The goal is make reserve assets as stable as possible. (Volality limitation, more stable = more trusted platform)
1
… 1 % of all reserve assets deployed to …
In a bull market, a stablecoin reserve will dilute LUNC holders because as new people buy USTC, you will have to keep minting and selling new LUNC to pay for the stablecoin
Anyone who owns LUNC is a crypto maximalist and the reserve should be aligned with that ethos
Zero correlation in bear markets doesn’t exist… you want something that is a crypto asset (won’t be a drag during bull markets) but in another “lunar eclipse” it would perform much more robustly than
BTC is the safety asset, the gold bar of crypto, it’s not a smart contract platform. It is the most defensive L1 during any crash, and has proven it time and time again. It also has the highest and most predictable liquidity
For every 1% break in the USTC vs. peg, 1% of the BTC reserve would be sold to buy back USTC at the market rate & burn into LUNC
As the peg broke further, the same amount of BTC would buy back more and more USTC, and a Soros attack could not be profitable for the attacker
The minting of new tokens should be banned forever!
Hell Ya Bruh!!
Have to.
I cant agree with you. I dont think BTC and ETH are as secure as you see them. I see crypto market absolute differently.
I wish you good health and happy life but at this stage I’m hoping Luna Classic gets up and running and we can talk then.
I just want to point out, as I review the code attached from @ek826, and consulted another application developer just to be sure I was correct in my review, that in the function CreateValidator(), it specifically would not allow the Cosmos-SDK function to run after the return (at the beginning of the function), and returns with an error message, if it is below the block height 8905758 (and above block height 7603700).
We are currently at block height 8142965 (as of 6/20/2022 at 10:13AM UTC).
In other words, until block height 8905758, no new validators would be able to join the active set.
Just to update: the developer has been tagged for review of:
isn’t that part of the proposal?
to limit new create new validator until a future date
Dont worry. Everything is as should be. They will restart chain because some file need to be rolled back. Then he will pull changes.
Yes it is, I just wanted to clarify not only was it in the proposal, but also in the code, since the comment dfunk made to KonstantinB2S (on 6/19/2022 at 11:26am UTC) could be construed as validator active set pool size being a concern even if this proposal passed vs. something that the community could consider in the future after the block height 8905758 (where he was asking for input from KonstantinB2S). dfunk stated in that comment:
I do feel that your concerns regarding an attack from existing validators is a valid one…
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.
I just wanted to clarify that the code would not allow any new validators into the active set until the block height, just to make sure it did not raise any concerns from validators who have not yet voted (or those staked that have yet to vote)(at least for those who may be concerned about this aspect).
Its to early to allow re-staking, the 99,9% you are talking about are not lunatics and they never will be.
OG’s that allready have staked LUNC, should be rewarded for a long time.
Hope people take to their senses.
Existing delegates have been getting all the rewards for quite a while now. Plus, didn’t they also get compensated with Luna 2 airdrops? Do you think it’s fair that 99,9% of those who hold the tokens can’t delegate and vote - a fundamental right of any democratic blockchain?
You can always buy some more and stake - nothing should stop you from doing that.
Says the one that said the following…
Also the same who wants to push Do Kwon & TerraLabs into Bankruptcy to purchase their assets extra cheap. Knowing these actions would destroy the current holders, cause mass delistings, and instead of buying anything, instead could potentially cause LUNC, USTC, & LUNA2 to become locked up and unaccesable by anyone as the guy with the keys is wiped out financially or worse.
This is the definition of corporate corruption lol. It’s also illegal btw.
I just flagged this posts. They are offensive and nonsence. I recommend to do same.
This discussion has gone off the rails and become unproductive because of the lack of civility displayed. It has now devolved to the level of ad hominum attacks. This is embarrassing to the community.
If you disagree with someone’s position, convince them through civil discussion and debate. But let’s please stop the nonsense hostility and name-calling.
"This mechanism should be true until the total supply = 10 billion LUNC, after that, this mechanism is disabled and the total supply can never be changed.
proposal 3568 passed with 168Milion votes
maybe some of the reserve can be with tokens gold e.g. PAX gold
just an idea
All of this stuff is up for debate. I would say that anything PAXG did, we can do ourselves. I’d also say that any tie to a physical asset means real world liability i.e. vulnerability to seizure. Which means somebody has to guard it, which means they’re a central point of failure for the network.
Keeping the collateral in the form of crypto assets would be ideal – it wouldn’t maximize diversification but it would reduce real world attack surface.
i hear you but i don’t think we there yet, trying to stable something with something unstable not seem to work for now.
the idea of gold backed can bring confidence and stability for now.
gold maybe not exciting as BTC but sure stable, real word asset will become part of crypto like Terraland project. blockchain is part of the real world and its just make it better.
maybe instead of USD peg token we can create a new token that is crypto peg
as you said its all up for debate 