Hi… Sorry, I don´t understand. You say:
On May 13th, at the time of the depeg, the market swap between LUNC and every other stablecoin was removed by forcing the minimum spread in the market module to 100%, returning zero coins in swap transaction.
But I can swap Terra<>Lunc or Terra<>Terra anytime from TS wallet. How is that?
Thank you.
I support this proposal
I support this proposal. It’s about time we start cleaning up 
If TR believe this is the correct way forward to help secure things then I’m all for it
Do it but add a warning for people to be aware that when they swap, they are going to get zero back.
I agree ! Perfect! We are Together:muscle:
fully supporting
Great idea. I support this
Would that be any chance we can identify the issue instead of just simply disable the market swap function?
As LUNC would not be here without you, I’d vote for the proposal.
NOTE: I think you need to have a chat with Youtubers like HHC as their negative talk on some of your suggestions creates a lot of confusion for LUNC holders.
I be givin da green light me mateys, be goin’ fer it 
I support this proposal
Nope dont like the idea. Unless you keep UST and LUNC rewards from staking and allow me to swap between the two.
I am more in agreement with removing those tokens that are not necessary and trying to strengthen those that can give stability to the blockchain and its economy.
I would support this proposal
Amazing work Terra Rebels. I personally support this.
When can I vote? I totally support it!
I do support this proposal thank you
Hi @ek826 ,
I wish I had the time today to do this issue and the code tracking justice, and I am willing to look a little foolish if I get something wrong (if it helps), but from what I am seeing, the issue appears to be this:
Piecing together a little bit from another source regarding where the bad pricing data came from in the incident mentioned in the discussion’s description, and a quick look through from the Oracle. It appears that the bad price data came from fixer. It also appears that the oracle-feeder/price-server/config/default-sample.js provides the sample that the validators would most likely have used (in addition to the readme instructions) in pulling their price data. It looks like https://currencylayer.com/product and https://fixer.io/product are both directing to https://apilayer.com/ ( meaning they may be pulling the same underlying FX data).
The oracle-feeder/price-server does look like if the validators all followed the same order for their pricing data from default-sample.js for their own default.js config, they would all be returning and voting on the exact same data. That may confirm that the data from the source is correct, but part of the implementation was to determine the actual correct price.
So, it seems like just asking the validators to mix their sources in the default.js in fiatProvider: { fallbackPriority: [‘currencylayer’, ‘alphavantage’, ‘fixer’, ‘exchangerate’, ‘bandprotocol’] } would then fix this. This way they are not all voting on the data from the same source that just happened to fall in the same priority since the majority of them used the sample file’s priority, but instead by instructing validators to change the priority it would pull data from different sources for them to vote on. It appears that this would have solved the issue in this situation.
Thank you again so much, and I hope you are doing well today
Thank you Dr. Kim
I support your proposal, admire your intellect and appreciate all the TR devs efforts.