Are you @dokwon assuming that developers are going to stick around? There are already reports of developers asking to build on other chains. How will forking keep their and investors’ confidence in Terra? If there are no devs, what does Terra have to offer for the investors? If there is no stablecoin, why use Terra? Luna will just be another coin with no use case, i.e. worthless. Thus, the central narrative for Terra regarding the algorithmic decentralized stable coin should be preserved as it is primarily the only means as to why people were invested in the ecosystem.
Putting a bandaid on this issue won’t actually fix the problem. The problem here is TRUST. After this whole debacle, we can see clearly that there is faltering trust in you and the ecosystem. It is possible to rebuild without forking. If forking was a means to ‘clean the slate’ and ‘clear fiduciary resposibilities’, expect legal ramifications to ensue. It would only make sense to fork if the blockchain was unusable due to an exploit. What happened was not an exploit, but rather proving that your system had severe economic design flaws.
This can be remedied by hiring professionals and economists to correctly set up such a system. I have listed some proposals below that explain what happened to your flawed design and how to fix it. We all are trying to save Terra, but if you don’t want to listen to what the vast majority of users are trying to say (no Luna v.2), then your community will dwindle in size. Because who wants to be a part of a community that is only one-sided, i.e CENTRALIZED?
If you haven’t seen these proposals, please give them a look as they are the only proposals that make sense.