Staking on LUNC Should be Enabled Immediately, Without Delay

Summary

  1. Staking on LUNC was disabled without a community vote, or a 7 days voting period, why does it NOW requires a so called “voting process” to re-enable the STOLEN rights of LUNC holders?
  2. Supporters of Do Kwon (and LFG) is going to justify the drastic action from above with something alone the line of “emergency” and “community interest”. Yet you know what is an real emergency against community interest?
    • Breach of contract: investors of LUNC both before or post “attack” made their purchase under the false pretense that LUNC is a “governance token”. Regardless of how you justify LFG’s actions during and post “attack”, a “governance token” is not so “governance” if its inherent rights: governance & staking (from the initial white paper) could be removed, held on indefinitely; all done so quick and so easily, without the express consent of the community.
    • The intrinsic value of LUNC, stolen: Do Kwon is going to make you believe that LUNA is bigger than UST. “Community” is what makes Terra valuable. Well, not so quick (or “steady lads”, as the man said himself). The intrinsic value of LUNC as a crypto currency is plain and simple: governance and staking. What it was designed to to do, what it promised to millions and millions of investors around the world. Without these inherent rights, LUNC is WORTHLESS.
  3. The so-called “attackers” (whom LFG still failed to identify till this day) might have started this whole disaster, but ultimately LFG literally sentenced LUNC to death through the breach of contract and the obviously illegitimate voting and passing of the LUNA v2 proposal.
  4. The reality is, at this very moment, we have 341.13M / 6.91T LUNC staked vs. total supply. Which works out to be: 0.004952% of LUNC tokens controls the fate of 99.995048%. Meanwhile LUNC tokens has been trading freely among most major exchanges, little do the investors know, not all tokens were created equal. You would think Bernie Sanders is a bit extreme with his 1% theory, until you learn about Terra.
  5. Hint: therefore, LFG, validators, and anyone involved in the backdoor decision makings of shutting down LUNC (and the push towards LUNA #2), you have exposed yourself towards a humongous amount of legal and financial liabilities. Not a big fan of Fatman myself, but with everything that has been going on since the Supposedly “attack”, you guys have tilled the odds towards Fatman’s favor, by a great margin.

Motivation
Enabled Staking on LUNC Immediately, Without Delay.
Return the abilities of governance and staking to the LUNC holders.
Do what’s right for the COMMUNITY. Not what’s seemly favorable only for a small(0.004952%) group of people.

Proposal
There has been multiple proposals and discussions about re-enabling stacking, which I support all of them fundamentally. But it is important to point out that it is not ok to artificially impose any extra delay on the re-enabling of staking for LUNC. Justice delayed is justice denied. The governance and staking rights were stolen from the LUNC holders. NOW it is time to do what’s right. Investors interest should be above all else.

17 Likes

Until the wholesalers sell all 6.9T to hamsters, nothing will happen, put up and forget it, buy a new moon and steak, in a couple of years it will be 2k+
People are making money now, don’t interfere.

There has been multiple proposals and discussions about re-enabling stacking, which I support all of them fundamentally. But it is important to point out that it is not ok to artificially impose any extra delay on the re-enabling of staking for LUNC. Justice delayed is justice denied. The governance and staking rights were stolen from the LUNC holders. NOW it is time to do what’s right. Investors interest should be above all else.

6 Likes

Totally since the logs leak this has to be done asap

How do you deal with governance attacks?

1 Like

Sounds like an oligarchy to me.

1 Like

You have some very valid points worth discussion.

  • What is the current LUNC distribution? out of the 6+ trillions new tokens printed, who owns the majority?
  • New LUNA #2, what makes you think it will worth anything 6 months from now? Let alone couple of years. When the market will inevitably move on to the next trending project.
  • Exactly who is making money? Pro traders who somehow succeed with market timing? Or people with insiders knowledge?
  • Why would any work or attempt to rescue LUNC interfere with people making money?
2 Likes

Vote. Link ?

is this true?

4 Likes

Could you please elaborate on the risk of a governance attack at this stage ? What would be the damage that could be done ?

2 Likes

How would you stop governance attacks? - Governance & Proposals - Terra Research Forum

1 Like

LUNA 2 is a wrapper that will be pumped up in due time. You just need to get out on time. And the attack on LUNA1 was well organized to make money. Now it is being sold to earn money again, taking advantage of the fact that people believe in the idea. Sell ​​the future using past achievements. And they receive money in the present.

If staking is re-enabled, someone/s can buy a tonne of LUNC to stake, then create dangerous proposals and control the vote with their massive stake.

Isnt it exactly what do kwon and some other members of tfl did?

1 Like

This guy is full of it. I wouldn’t believe a word he says

Have you read the chat logs. That wasnt a lie that fatmanterra wrote but a summary of what mamy of us have read. Like this one for example. So no it is not a lie.

1 Like

This whole governance attack theory is just overblown right now. we are making the assumptions that a) someone with enough capital is going to risk real money on a dyinng project. b) The market is just going to watch and do nothing while whatever form of governance attack is taking place.
Also, in my opinion, the governance attack already took place, but from within (LUNA #2 proposal).

Now if you are truly worried about governance attack. Then there is way more reasons why staking must be resumed immediately. Let the market decide if LUNC is worth saving. Validators are not the only factor securing the network. The living ecosystem aspect of the network is what’s going to secure it.

What we are doing right now, completely block new staking, block new validators. This is pretty much like choking someone with full force due to worries of air pollution. And the person is obviously dyinng on his last breath but you wouldn’t let it go. Because yes, air pollution is real, air pollution is bad, let’s choke him to death if needed.

The market cap of LUNC at the moment is $798,009,420. With somewhat activate trading volume around the globe. It is nothing compare to what it was before. But still a substantial amount of real money required if someone truly tries to carry out a governance attack. Remember, no one can instantly buy a large portion of anything without drying up market liquidity completely. Putting himself at the risk of exponential cost base increase and becoming the exit liquidity for the current holders.

Now, what do you think it is going to happen in 1 month? 6 months? 2 years? With the current direction of the coin price (down and down), It is going to get easier and easier for a governance attack as time goes on. What are we doing? are we betting everything on the hope that the current validators will do their job forever?

7 Likes

Information on Twitter being shared that indicates validators are receiving 60,000% APY for staking. Hence the reason all are reluctant to release/unstake and hand the keys over to new devs/community governance.

Do you understand what you are typing?

1 Like

Agreed. Though it opens to a hostile take over in sense from all the diluted LUNA. In another sense the same was always true with enough buying power of LUNA. Buying power representation hasn’t really changed but old buyers have lost power because our money put in has been made worthless compared to those buying now. However… buying power for vote number and staking accrual had massively become open to many and more decentralized… if gov staking were bow allowed under these conditions.
However… LFG member or members themselves took advantage of.low and diluted LUNA.price,.scooped up on cheap, and redelegated to validators. This is a breach of network security itself. Not only governance, how are users to trust blockchain transactions when behind the validators is a singlw massive staking entitity?
Better to open governance and it may be chaos, and there may be a takeover or several. But if anybtakeover wants LUNAC to gain more value and thus reap even better/more returns than a quick buck scam, I think it’ll settle.over time to community working/negotiating.
As is governance and chain utterly broken, hijacked, controlled- all for the purpose of it not being broken, hijacked, and controlled. BS.

1 Like