First, the great new revival proposal is the full recognition of the likelihood/legitimacy/viability of the “Classic” chain. Some enhancements of this feature:
Upon complete vote in favour of “revival plan”, validation/delegation will be opened up to “LunaClassic” current holders, with condition of veto/overturn-proof protection of approved revival plan. v1 governance needs to first approve a higher cost governance propsal listing fee. But, they may want to make v1 value proposals right away.
Let v1 chain determine what branding name to attach to their token between fork. I propose Luna1 as a candidate.
Upon acceptance of revival plan also offer source code to Terra tools either as open source, or to v1/classic governance approvals of teams to obtain the source.
First guide to analyzing proposal is assuming a market value. $5B Luna valuation is reasonable post volatility period, with $10B potential within a year or @$60k/btc value. But $5B-$5/luna is used here as “value”
Some pushback on distribution allocations:
30% to dev/community is $1.5B. This is high. Would $500M (10%) still be a signficant development fund that can promote development on Terra vs other chains? If so, that is a big pool/funding source for others.
Paying v1 UST/Luna holders a fraction could be a lower fraction. By providing v1 with governance and software tools to set their own viable future, “we” are helping v1. Taking away from their fraction of new luna is compensation for the value of cooperation.
re: UST holders: 10% unlocked at genesis, rest vested over 2 years thereafter
I’d suggest instead first $10k in UST “rewards” unlocked at genesis. Rest vested. UST holders temperament is against volatility. This would be a “cheap” measure to help UST reward recipients, and those at most risk of harm, cash out if that fits their needs/anxieties.
All of the above cuts are funding for remaining/new groups.
A UST snapshot date, that represents when UST first broke 50c, may 11th 3am, probably coincides with massive luna printing events that fundamentally changes the v1 vs v2 value dynamic/impact, and defines the “DAO-hack-equivalence” moment. Using UST value at that snapshot point as a reward basis means compensating only those who did not cash out prior to that point (if they did, they are better off than any revival proposal).
Such a “doom point” UST value should have a much higher compensation formula than USTclassic balances. USTClassic can be saved by v1 governance if they want. Perhaps it is at 10c or 1c. I’d buy at 0.1c and stake in AnchorClassic for sure, with LunaClassic burn proposals.
But, given a fork, saving those that need “fork point” rewards, and UST doom point can be different than Luna “doom point” that is current basis for rollback, makes more sense than rewarding the 5/27 v1 value.
“Bonded Luna” is not precisely defined in Revival2 proposal. I’d suggest that it should include UST and Luna LP provision. That fundamentally helps/helped liqtuidity in difficult times (… including current v1 times) The above suggested “UST doom point” (may 11th) may be more appropriate than the Luna doom point/fork point of May 7th. The 3am May 11th point, is also the time Luna price fell below $0.20. So a good time for “all hell broke loose for everyone” point.
honest/cooperative assistance to make LunaClassic chain viable is a good pretext to clawback rewards from some allocations in order to give more to Luna and UST holders at their respective doom points.
v1/classic can make their own v1 rewards by funding v1 efforts.