Not all tokens are on exchange, the problem is they were minting luna to peg terra which diluted luna but didnt help to peg terra, I think stop mine luna, burn whatever isnt on exchange yet, buy back all luna you can and hold luna around 0,1 or 1 dollar. This way you can try to repeg terra (dont know if its gonna work) or make stablecoin with better protocol.
2 Likes
Thank you for the reply. I still have a question
So i will be one of those holders.
Validators should reset the network ownership to 1B tokens, distributed among:
400M (40%) to Luna holders before the depegging event (last $1 tick before the depeg on Binance should be reasonable), bLuna, LunaX and Luna held in contracts should also be recipients, minus the Terraform Labs account at
As i had my average 17 $. Then sold and bought again after it went under 1$. ?
I disagree with this!
1 Like
THERE IS A QUESTION THAT MANY OF US ARE ASKING OURSELVES: WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THOSE OF US WHO BOUGHT MILLIONS OF $LUNA WHEN IT WAS AT 0.00001? WILL WE LOSE EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EARN?
1 Like
THIS 100000%. Fix UST first, then LUNA literally moon. That’s how it works in Terra, and it had worked.
7 Likes
I don’t agree.
2 Likes
UST is the reason why LUNA price going up.
Back to the fundamental fix UST and gain trust.
LUNA will go to the moon again.
4 Likes
I agree. Really good proposal!
Hi DoKwon,
Can you please few things before making a final plan.
- UST pegging is the critical thing to regain the trust as everything is build upon it.
- Can you get institutional investors to buy UST and make the peg 1:1 to USD. Consider issuing a large tax on selling UST and LUNA such as 50% to prevent further rug pulls until the system get stable. Reduce the tax as the system getting better.
- Stop all the trading activities of UST and LUNA from all the exchanges to avoid people losing further on LUNA.
- Burn reasonable amount of LUNA to reduce the inflation.
- Review the stable coin protocol such as backed up by 25% BTC, 25% USD, 25%LUNA and 25% GOLD/PAXG.
- Only give sustainable APY to stable coin holders, let the rest goes to treasury fund.
- Treat all LUNA holders fairly.
- Investigate and proceed legal actions to the attacker.
Since LUNA eco system is good, I think we will survive but it may take longer.
1 Like
For a supposed master of stablecoin, this proposal is pretty $hit and shows pure reactionary damage control (for the whales) without any attempt to solve the fundamental issues or provide an actual solution to fixing them. This just bails out the people who likely were the first ones to abandon ship when things started to turn for the worst.
Where is all your bravado now? Show us the genius and how to actually fix Luna.
4 Likes
Excuse my English, I’m French
I just bought LUNA on binance and if I understand correctly, I just threw money out the window? 
Why did you relaunch the blockchain and let the exchanges list again?
There have been more than tens billions of dollars trades in the last 24 hours!
Also, I bought LUNA until the last minutes, and that’s how you thank those who stayed until the end?
A lot of people are currently buying LUNA, are you going to steal them all?
1 Like
Curious to the people who are saying if you invested in LUNA it was a risk and you should expect it can go to 0.
With that logic, is it also reasonable to presume that if you bought UST after 31/12/2020, the point at which it first de-pegged below 0.9, you did so knowing full well the risk of significant de-peg was not low, yet, you choose to take the risk given the insentive of 20% anchor returns.
Just accept UST holders dont have a stronger case than LUNA holders.
6 Likes
I would have to respectfully disagree with you @dokwon - I think saving the project is completely doable (although I can sympathize with how difficult this past week has been for you, and on you).
As far as I see it:
- Both LUNA and UST are assets (A) that are tied together. When they cross markets there is a liability (L) and the net result is equity (P). A - L = P.
- LUNA is the governance coin (and a reserve), UST is the stable coin. Both have value. Both back one another up. The net of both added together are the assets (in addition to any outside reserves that are owned by the DAO governance holding LUNA).
- Contrary to belief, UST and LUNA are backed by real money - it is the buying power of the money received (or expended) when the coins were / are initially sold (or bought back) (there may be some other forms of monetizing as well - but this is the essential essence).
- The minting / burning is really just an algorithmic way of moving funds from one supply market to the other in order to bring equity. So, this is real money, both Terra and the DAO will be responsible for this legally. You can not just burn or mint without actual value behind it.
- Some have asked why the supply of UST keeps growing - people are selling it faster than it is being purchased with LUNA (burned in exchange for mint in LUNA). However, I will say that the market cap is still in the billions (even if the pool size is diluted). This is why the minting process was exaggerated in LUNA, in order to buy back UST to diminish the UST pool size (making it more scarce, and therefore more valuable - and since LUNA was what was mainly being used to do that, it made LUNA less scarce and therefore less valuable). It is supply and demand.
- The problems have been:
- the burn / mint rate was hard set rather than set based upon volume of sales / exchanges on the Terra blockchain
- no automated volume level restrictions on sale of assets (purchase of assets should not be limited)
- stopped purchases at the time adding buying power to the assets was needed (although I do realize it was to prevent a run on sales and the value of supply and trust level - the protocol should be amended to allow sales to be rate controlled while buying is not). If there is a reason buying would present a problem to the ecosystem, then that supply should be purchased and held in reserve.
- loaning money from reserves to market makers rather than using it to buy back UST to diminish supply and raise the value (Terra could have done this themselves, or the Governance could have done this)
- there may have been an emergency plan that the Governance had approved, but if so, it was either did not exist, was not followed well, or it has room for improvement (which is probably true for every emergency plan).
- throwing in the towel when there is still 3B in market cap for LUNA (it is just diluted right now), and 2B in UST (as of 5/14 at 4:37pm CT). This is more than enough capital to restart this project - new projects would love to have that much capital to start with. Will it be the 40B dollar size it was - no, it has already lost size, and you will need to start where you are at 5B. But, this is more than enough to both save LUNA and UST over the mid term by burning and minting as buying power is still available in LUNA, buying back UST with remaining reserves, and then as UST pool size shrinks, slowly resell UST and covert it to LUNA (by burning and purchasing back LUNA). This is how every single person eventually can regain the value of their LUNA and UST. No bailout plan is going to get your money back with the exception of pennies on the dollar - wouldn’t you rather wait it out and potentially get the whole amount back and have the opportunity for growth? The community can vote on whether they would like a guideline in place for who, such as low income persons or those who had savings account products, are paid back first if there is a desire to provide more immediate help. If not, then something that instead is easy and equally applied to all based on their shares / number of coins (or something else).
- There is not much difference between the model that Terra used here and the model of most fiat currencies (although in banking, the funds are insured and that is a big difference).
- Hard currency is better than fiat in that it is actually backed. It is true that the fed backs currency, and that our currency is the currency of the international monetary fund, but even the fed uses dollars, or derivatives of dollars, to partially back up the very dollars they release (which is completely crazy). Our only saving grace is that the US still holds the largest gold reserve, but even it most likely would not have been enough if a similar situation that happened to LUNA / UST was scaled up and attempted on a country wide level or against the NATO states and the international monetary fund. That is why the fed constantly manipulates the fiat system to attempt to keep it in close enough balance, even if it means they devalue money (sadly). The point though for this situation is that the LUNA / UST project was not much different than fiat monetary policy, although it was obviously overextended and did not back the stablecoin with enough reserve value and restrictions to selling under pressure.
- There is an obligation to those who were sold LUNA / UST as a savings account (that one is a legal liability that I am pretty sure that if you do not recover from will have some serious legal implications - possibly even for governance members, but particularly for the day to day leaders of the DAO governance project).
- The course was not fundamentally flawed (or at least were no more flawed than fiat monetary policy), but certain specifics mentioned above were (and currently are - and there may be others that I have not mentioned or thought of besides these I admit, but as I see it, these mentioned above are the central ones). The problem now is whether either the current team will re-engage, or the DAO Governance members will take leadership and relieve the current day-to-day team, and place a new day-to-day team in place to re-engage. No amount of rebranding is going to be any easier than just working through this - and it will come with much less legal complications and responsibilities in the near future.
Putting this thing back together is completely doable at this point - without even having further outside funding (you have 5B in assets between the two tokens, and whatever may not be loaned out from reserves), but rather working over the next number of months to minimize the pool sizes, regain trust by restoring the value of the assets (both using the current assets and minimizing the pool sizes of those assets, as well as bringing in new purchases). If you happen to get further outside help - fine. But, you have what you need financial now to do this, and although it will recover on a smaller scale and most likely slower than most would like, it is more than doable. You have a fiduciary legal responsibility to do this from what I am seeing (although I do admit that I am only seeing as an observer and not from the day-to-day leadership team, or those who have been closely tied to the DAO governance since the beginning).
The idea here is to shrink things down to their actual monetary size, and then move from there toward new growth - it still is going to be larger than most other decentralized stable coin projects.
If I were to list the threads that seem most promising at this point they would be:
- agora[dot]terra[dot]money/t/8-steps-to-save-luna-now-economic-refactoring-proposal-from-industry-professionals/7510
- In regards to the points I mentioned above that are similar
- agora[dot]terra[dot]money/t/buy-back-and-burn-luna/10946
- In regards to shrinking the pool sizes (although I disagree about UST being dead - at this point they are just diluted pools that need to shrink through equity [purchasing through minting and burning and purchasing through buy backs and either hold in reserve or burn after purchase]). But, minting and burning should not just happen in a way that violates monetary buying power under the token assets - you can’t just burn without purchasing it first, that is essentially devaluing the whole system monetarily, and then you do hit the point of being counter productive and driving away any remaining value.
- Proposal 1164 or 1169
- Only as temporary solutions to allow the minting purchasing of UST and burning sale of UST to shrink the pool and provide a smaller supply to enable a larger demand. On a permanent level, these should be based on volume of trade, and that trade should be the UST to LUNA (and vice versa) on the Terra chain. Do not worry about arbitrage on the exchanges, you can apply a volume control of exchange on your own block chain for when sales / exchanges are too much volume that could create a run and quick loss of confidence - you can slow these down to a reasonable pace on your own block chain (let traders on the exchanges do what they would like).
- agora[dot]terra[dot]money/t/terra-ecosystem-revival-plan/8701
- I would completely disagree, but I can sympathize with how difficult this must be for @dokwon both as someone who is probably very tired right now after this week, and someone who is watching a good portion of the work he has done feel lost as people continue to say it’s over.
I would post these points, but my LUNA was purchased wrapped and is not on the chain. Feel free if there is anything in here that is useful, refine it into specific and succinct points, and put it on the governance section as a new proposal.
I hope that helps a little bit.
7 Likes
Its a stable coin it should have recovered, risk should be 0 they should have kept printing Luna until it was even more worthless to repeg as the protocol says instead they stopped it to try and save Luna which makes no sense, it is how it was designed
1 Like
It should be based on coin quantities in wallets. Purchase prices will be all over the place. As long as it’s proportional - that proposal that wants to cut off all help from those who invested the most is heartless, and ignores exchange wallets that mask thousands of users.
For the past 24 hours, I have been in a state of disbelief: It seems as if almost nobody understands what gives LUNA value. Not even its designer.
If I ran TFL, then I would have consistent on-point messaging to assure UST holders that they will be made whole. I would be pleading for their continued patience. And I would put all available resources into repaying them. I am shocked that none of that is happening, but to the contrary.
It is the right thing to do. And it is the only hope for the future of the Terra ecosystem, the LUNA token, and TFL.
Anyone who doesn’t see that is terrifically shortsighted.
Worse: Anyone who doesn’t see that is thinking of LUNA only in terms of empty speculative value—boosting the price, so as to sell to the greater fool. That is the classic definition of a Ponzi.
For LUNA to have fundamental value, the peg’s promise must be kept.
Agree 100%
I think everyone should be that still.has the.coins. we should get what we can show was lost.
I don’t think anyone can argue against that, and it’s very easy to say. But the project needs $10 billion or more USD to repeg, and that money doesn’t exist. People can be patient… and that money still won’t exist.
Anyone who doesn’t see that is terrifically shortsighted.
Accepting that… this proposal seems a reasonable way to move forward: and let the market decide if a standalone rebased LUNA is still worth a few pennies or not.
1 Like
Imho…
-
Anyone who sold between depeg & now has chosen their compensation & should be excluded from any bailout.
-
Anyone who purchased in the last hours before chain halt was purely speculating, and not trying to support the network, so should also have those tokens excluded from any bailout.
-
Any bailout should include both $LUNA & $UST holders. Preferably at a ratio which reflects the market cap of each at time of depends.
-
Prioritizing smaller holders over whales as per this proposal by PersianCapital…
/t/proposal-tiered-repayment-1-1-usdc-refund-to-all-ust-holders-up-to-a-certain-cap-per-wallet-using-lfg-funds-favouring-small-wallets/6471
2 Likes