@aeuser999 I appreciate you outlining it here and agree to a lot of things. Also if you need some Luna to post the proposal, if you share with me the address I can load it up with the required amount
1 Like
Agreed
This is the only real path forward. Buy back and burn luna. You can’t tell who was trying to help. Grow the ecosystem
5 Likes
LUNA is advertised as a volatile asset. UST is advertised as a “stablecoin”. Volatile cryptocurrencies have no guaranteed exchange rate. By definition, “stablecoins” guarantee a pegged exchange rate.
Tether has briefly de-pegged as low as $0.85 before. It very briefly dropped below $0.95 a few days ago. Nevertheless, USDT holders reasonably expect Tether to defend its peg. And the Tether people evidently understand that their peg must be defended at all costs.
4 Likes
@dokwon Buy back and burn. Keep the existing ecosystem working, value will return and ust holders will recoup their holdings. Go with @HelloThere proposal.
5 Likes
I agree with almost everything, except the PersianCapital idea. For a network that treats everyone as equals, and that never penalized those that tried to hold more coins… this recovery effort is the wrong time to pick favorites. Any bailout should be fair, and proportional to coins held. The thought that PersianCapital would also give nothing to the large exchange addresses that back thousands of users is particularly distasteful.
We can do this without making two classes of citizen (and screwing one of them).
This, if people don’t understand this, they are just being greedy pos that made a bad call and want a refund like some Karen trading mf
2 Likes
Then I’d rather he completely = 0.000000000000
Then, the only honest solution is to declare the project bankrupt, and handle all of its available assets exactly as a bankrupt debtor’s assets are handled. UST holders are the first creditors in line. It is is arguable whether creditors would benefit more from shutting down the project and liquidating it, or reorganizing it in receivership. It is not arguable that creditors must be repaid.
Anyone who doesn’t see that is trying to pull a scam.
Worth pennies, based on what? The sell-it-to-a-greater-fool theory, i.e. a Ponzi?
There is no goodness in the financial market. I bought $2000000 at $3. Now it = 0
I’ve never complained. I just hope Luna can give a solution. At least there’s no need to lose so much.
If you’re complaining, please quit the financial market. It’s not suitable for you to survive
1 Like
I’m not. Here for the same reason everyone is. What you just mentioned in your comment.
Shame on you guys why deleting my topic
{Investors who were scammed into minting 6.9 trillion tokens after the attack}
after the second time they suspended my account if you do it again I will go to Twitter
#justice-for-new-investors
2 Likes
pffft, its called stop limits. All you guys should have had them in place. Tough lessons but take this one. NEVER invest more than you can lose. You know how much money is lost in crypto every day? Imagine everyone asking for a refund…
As for the people buying after the dip, if it wasn’t for them who’s going to lift the price back up? They are taking a risk just like you did.
2 Likes
They’ll get wrecked, that’s his plan. A liquidation one, the dude is a fraud, who got wrecked himself and now trying to destroy terra because he lost. I am sure he sold it all, and it was all bought back up by people. There has to be a vote of No confidence by the community to vote this con artist out, and watch terra moon
2 Likes
Yes. The market will decide if LUNA is worth a penny, or a dollar, or a thousand dollars, or nothing.
Though… buying now to sell higher later is the heart of the crypto markets. Is every purchase participating in a Ponzi? Even I’m not that paranoid 
1 Like
Yeah. The Persian Capital proposal is the part I like least, but still think should be recognized and could be refined.
Perhaps see if any of those whales might voluntarily accept a lower payout? If just a few of the whales accepted a lower payout, that could make a huge difference to some small holders.
You need to prioritise validators and delegators - they have the most loyalty, if you loose their support the blockchain doesn’t execute.
2 Likes
That just feels like a mess. Having a program rewrite wallet balances is understandable, testable by devs all on their own, and straightforward (which is this proposal). As soon as you add the ability for wallets to opt-out (e.g. be rewritten to zero, and their coins going back into the billion) how are you going to verify all those requests? You can’t just trust them (or maybe I’ll ask to opt-out your wallet ). Can you imagine having humans run that program?
Or, rebalance every wallet proportionally… and once it’s done, if a wallet owner wants to donate his coins… those types of donation programs are straightforward: anyone can send to central address.
Perhaps you disagree with the threshold in the Revival Plan, which would be the moment “before the depegging event”? In my original reply (terra-ecosystem-revival-plan/8701/3667), “Old Luna” holders are those that held tokens before the depegging event.
It wouldn’t fix the problem instead it make it worst! You just create a problem within a problem with your revival plan. Only solution of the current problem is to buy back and burn the $LUNA that you mint. Even CZ is against to your revival plan. Please hear us because without us your project is nothing. Don’t make another mistake this time
4 Likes