Revival Plan V2 - Modified

Based on the time intervals defined in the Revival Plan V2 there must be real time snapshots of wallet ownership divided by circulating supply. This will give an indication of what percentage of the actual circulating supply was held by a particular wallet.

Same percentages as described by DK, but determine instantaneous ownership of coins/marketcap at small time intervals throughout debegging and hyperinflation time period. This will be fair because determining how many coins the user held as a fraction of the overall supply would help ensure people who purchased a significant number of coins before or during the early phases of the hyperinflation (when there were only a few billion coins) would receive a reasonable number of shares.

Proposal is best illustrated by the examples below:

Part 1.
1.) Token holder A held 1,000,000 tokens at a market cap of 1 billion on 5/11. They held 0.1% of the overall supply of tokens. The market cap is recorded and now they would get 100 million * 0.1% = 100,000 Luna V2 tokens.

2.) Token holder B held 1,000,000 tokens at a market cap of 10 billion on 5/12 (early morning). They held 0.01% of the overall supply of tokens. The market cap is recorded and now they would get 100 million * 0.1% = 10,000 Luna V2 tokens.

3.) Token holder C held 1,000,000 tokens at a market cap of 6.5 trillion on 5/15. They held 0.00001538461% of the overall supply of tokens. The market cap is recorded and now they would get 100 million * 0.00001538461% = 15.38 tokens.

For 1,000,000 tokens:
Token holder A (price paid) > Token holder B (price paid) > Token holder C (price paid)

Redistribute in this way that accounts for the marketcap. Do not bin Token holder A, B, and C into a single market cap of 6.5 trillion, rather bin it as %tokens_held = tokens_held_at_specific_MC / MC.

Part 2.
Also, increase from 10% to 20% for holders up to 5/27.
Decrease from 35% to 25% for the holders up to 5/7.
Or keep them equal, do not discriminate.
Apply same marketcap principles for all cases to determine true holdings and distributions.

No. They need to burn. Forking creates no value. If they fork I’m out.


yes, the only way to rescue LUNA, is to burn the coins.

If fork, both Luna v1 and v2 got zero value. No one will buy new Luna coins trust me.


Whats the potential value for luna V2 token?

You need to burn the existing supply of LUNA. We don’t support forking…
Burn the existing tokens and revive our LUNA.

1 Like

Please help me understand the example provided in the proposal

What is the definition of “Token holder” ? ; in the context of

  • UST holder
  • Luna holder
    Are they one and the same ?

From coingecko @ 17 May 10:21
TerraUSD(UST) market cap = $1,149,886,048 ; circulating supply = 11,278,869,490
Terra (LUNA) market cap = $1,177,145,994 ; circulating supply = 6,532,307,439,908

In this case, I was using a Terra (LUNA) holder as an example, however, the same concept applies to TerraUSD (UST). Distributions can be adjusted so that it split 50/50 between the two. The key point is ANY forking proposal MUST consider instantaneous MC and percent ownership by token holder (function of that MC). Any other type of Fork in a simplistic form as suggested by DK’s original Revival Plan V2 is unacceptable and will destroy the quantity of tokens (and value) investors obtain in the Luna V2. I do like the idea of a variable burning also that would adjusted based on volume. For example if volume goes up increase the burn tax to eliminate more tokens out of the circulating supply, eventually this might discourage investors to transact and volumes would go down. At this point the burn tax would drop significantly to regain volumes. Rinse and repeat. A static burn tax might not burn quickly enough. Also, initially they should liquidate their current holdings which are still worth 100s of millions and then wait for the price to fall. Then buy back as many tokens as possible and initiate a massive initial burn.

Hilarious :rofl: #LuncBurn