I think you need to re-think any distributions of a new network token to all UST holders who also sold at less than 100% of the value. I took a 67% haircut on my holdings sir!
Yes!!! Yes !!! YES!!! BURN BABY BURN
1 Like
what about Anchor - aUST holders ?
If you sold why should you be rewarded? You are making even less sense than the guys here who are hating on stakers/validators.
Do Kwon, I think you owe everyone an explanation on what happened exactly.
You must know who’s responsible for the attack.
The community needs to know so that it can defend itself against it happening again.
It’s not just about Luna, it’s about the entire crypto space.
3 Likes
Please buy and burn to reduce supply, most users have already lowered their average, you just need to increase the price for that!
11 Likes
I feel like that starting from a point of debt is going to create an immediate sellers market. People will immediately try to salvage value from any new LUNA ownership and drive it back down to 0.
Starting from a point of zero ownership means the only people coming in are investors/buyers or people with confidence.
It sounds horrible but I just don’t see how this proposal doesn’t end with people flooding out the doors again and negative sentiment.
The distribution of the 400M LUNA is particularly arbitrary.
400M to LUNA holders before the depegging event:
- Would this include stakers, people unstaking?
- People with derivatives? (bLUNA, yLUNA, pLUNA)?
- Anyone with LUNA on a CEX is essentially screwed
There were plenty of people who lost on the way down post-depeg. None of these people were necessarily malicious actors but just people who believed LUNA was valuable and suddenly at a price point they wished to buy.
This proposal essentially just provides exit liquidity as a service on what is already a blockchain that people have very low confidence in and we will see a very quick race to zero yet again.
The economy needs a complete reset. LUNA holders particularly have always been holders of the asset that is supposed to absorb volatility and as bad as it seems, were always supposed to be the victims of any UST depeg.
You could potentially allow a forge-style raise event using UST to absorb any funds who wishes to exit UST to bid for the 1B LUNA on a vested timescale but I feel like at this point its not possible to make LUNA holders whole.
2 Likes
@dokwon Bad suggestion , i would not agree on that
Do as CZ_Binance suggested, its the better plan to save everything.
You will favor those who fleed with big sum of money again?
10 Likes
You’re absolutely ludicrous if you think this is the case, I rode every single one of my Luna down to zero hoping that the peg would be restored and took massive losses on my UST once realising all hope was lost. You’re incredibly out of touch, not everybody has extra funds to add to become this ‘defender’ you like to keep mentioning.
just stop being arrogance and lower your ego, and everything will be clear
5 Likes
I think you should only be compensated for buying after depeg if you owned LUNA prior to depeg. Need to reward the holders that made this community, not people jumping in trying to gain from the dumpster fire.
Also what happens to people that wanted to preserve some capital so pulled out of Anchor and bridged off Terra after depeg and took a loss at say UST value of .5?
1 Like
How did stakers flee? They were the ones who believed in LUNA the most. 40% of new supply is fair to them
2 Likes
Do, thank you for letting us know your thoughts, this is great. My primary questions/comments to add would be to see if there is a way to also allocate a % of new luna to users who didn’t sell off/bought tokens of projects being built on terra? As you stated, the community and it’s developers are what is currently worth preserving and I wholeheartedly agree. Given this, it would be nice to reward those who allocated and stayed loyal to the broader terra ecosystem as those projects inherently drive value to the underlying L1.
Maybe there is a way to convert luna locked in platforms like astroport, stader, etc at a set ratio. Then distribute a larger % of new luna to these protocols such that they can in turn pass along the new supply to actual users via incentives. This could 1) Reduce selling pressure of new luna once launched and 2) continue to spur and incentivize economic activity on the chain and drive value to the L1.
More importantly, I hope you are staying safe along with all of those at TFL and everyone within the broader community is staying safe.
1B should be divided based on the price owner bought.
1 Like
UST needs to be cut off from the network. There is simply too much outstanding debt. Preserve the blockchain’s native token and work back from the ashes.
6 Likes
Why would anyone buy a clear falling knife of a failed protocol and why would anyone doing such a foolish thing be rewarded?
I believe giving the same allocation to Luna holders and UST holders is a bit unfair since Luna’s market cap was much bigger than UST’s market cap. I should be proportional.
Need to address the detail of what a Luna is, such as Luna refracted in PRISM into yLuna and pLuna.
There should be a clear difference in quotas between those who held UST at $1 and those who purchased at $0.1.
People who actively participated in the Terra ecosystem (e.g., Lockdrop) suffered the most from UST. Make sure to make a difference in Allocation.
6 Likes
question: where is the money for this coming from? we still have VCs in for $LUNAv2?
additional detail: You might want to consider offering a USDC/USDT exit for UST holders who have lost interest and do not wish to stay in any longer. If funds is a problem, then, you could offer a reasonable discounted exit - e.g. 60% for every UST they have (past failed stable coin projects done something like this). Your current option of offering the new tokens pro-rata to UST holders may not stick well with those that just want to exit (because they need the cash now for rent etc) and effectively, is forcing the community to stay with the v2.
a lot of trust has been lost and while I agree that terra has an amazing ecosystem, but after this debacle and the obvious poor communication handling of the whole situation as revealed by CZ Binance, the risk profile for v2 is now vastly different to v1. In fact, v2 has more probability to failure than success at the moment by the pure fact that you are going to need to pull a rabbit out the hat to convince people to come back and invest into the ecosystem again. This time, 20% is probably not going to be enough to lure them in.
PS: you missed out stLUNA!
8 Likes
What you should do is talk for real with CZ Binance. He can help you. You guys may be good coding stuff but the way you destroyed the ecosystem was just a disaster. Everyone saw that it would fail but you kept destroying 2 coins. This proposal will destroy even more. Luna is a fungible token. You can’t just decide on your own that your coin is worth 4x more than someone else’s coin just because you are a staker. That’s just theft and bailing yourself out. Or you make a new Luna and redistribute honestly like Vitalik did. Or you keep this Luna, fix your peg with outside capital and then start to massively burn the excessive Luna you printed. This proposal basically goes against everything what the decentralized community stands for. This is an authoritarian cash grab.
25 Likes