The future of LUNC

General
1

I hope this message get’s to Kwon and LFG members.

Background:
I am PhD student majoring in Strategic Management. I still love the idea of algorithmic stable coin but centralized reserves of LUNA kept me away investing big in LUNA nor UST. I am not in lost nor made profit from this collapse. My only intention here to revive the original LUNA chain and UST for the good of crypto community in general. Because this collapse delays crypto adoption for another year or two. The unlimited fiat printing is the true enemy of crypto.

Feel free to write your arguments, but that’s what I see current situation.
First of all, the bad actors among us in this forum is trying to destroy the old chain. It is clear from from 3568 proposal and voting result. The validators who voted yes understand 1.2% buring does not revive the system but makes it obsolete making rest of the developers leave.
So they assume the devs move to LUNA 2.0. If you are validator and didn’t understand that you still should change your vote. We should focus on LUNC. LUNA 2.0 simply collapses in 2 month where the some of the vested airdrop is released. Simply because there is no fundamentals of the coin nor organic adoption expect forced airdrop.

Secondly, community means who holds voting power not bunch of speculators who wants “burn” and get quick rich!
In current case, the locked validators and which most of them follow Do Kwon. Hence, we don’t really have DAO in LUNC. So Do Kwon, do you really want to destroy the original chain? Do you think forced LUNA 2.0 is going to succeed? Most people believe restoring LUNC is more realistic than moving to LUNA 2.0. Because of number reasons.

  1. If everytime chain fails you move to new chain, you simply don’t deserve trust. Also that’s not how crypto works. That’s how scam works.
  2. There is no organic use case at all.
  3. The price chart clearly shows investors interest in LUNA 2. Which is almost 0.

Clear your name with good faith in crypto and truly focus on LUNC and on its community. If you can reach decentralization of reserves and healthy allocation of coins among community members and DAO itself starts fixing the numbers.
You have number of advantages now: now you got worlds attention even it is negative, it can be changed over time. Community has grown significantly because of this collapse, so more people will understands how algorithmic stable coin can be one solution to our broken financial system.
What I see you can do in general:

The top wallets should be bought or negotiated at this current low market price from both LUNC and UST.

Decentralization of reserves should be set with current value of the LUNC and UST.

Once it is done staking should be enabled. Burning can be done but without huge transaction fees.

And UST pegging can continue its mint and burn mechanism.

Some small details can be added but that’s general picture.

10 Likes
2

You are 100% correct.
DK is smarter than most and he knows LUNC is THE way.
Problem is, he wanted a way OUT. LUNA v2 is the proof.

2 Likes
3
  1. Do Kwon will soon be dealt with by the prosecutor’s office. 2. Don’t you want Lun’s owners to get rich?
4

You are absolutely correct

2 Likes
5

Whether I want them be rich or not this is not relevant to revival plan of LUNC.

1 Like
6

I have been loving the ideas of @Deathstar_Daddy. While a burn will not solve the price problems short term, I feel a good burn combined with building new utility in $LUNC is the only real path forward

2 Likes
7

I agree with the general idea. This chain is left on the sidelines in an attempt to create the new chain, but it seems that there is a big community behind it. It could be worth saving and making an impact. Send a clear message that some cryptos are more than speculative pump and d.ump and that crypto communities can unite and fix their own problems without the help from corrupt governments that brought the world economy to it’s knees.

People need to realise that taxing transactions will only lead to burning their own few coins and destroy any usage and further development on Terra Classic + their own investment’s value. Furthermore even huge daily transactions that could potentially burn tens of millions of LUNC each day, would take hundreds of years to burn trillions.

For example let’s say that you achieve 3B on chain daily average Tx volume:

Daily Tx = 3,000,000,000.00 (LUNC)
Tax = 1.2%
Daily Burn = 36,000,000 (LUNC)
Monthly Burn = 1,080,000,000 (LUNC)
Yearly Burn = 12,960,000,000 (LUNC)

If Total Supply = 6,900,000,000,000 (LUNC)
You will need 450+ Years to reach a total supply of tens of billions. (average calculation for the sake of the argument)

If you want to burn faster lets say in 30 years you will need to have an on chain volume of 40-50 Billion LUNC ( $3.5M at current LUNC price). That is impossible without dapps. Even more impossible during a bear market even with a few dapps.

Problem is that most supporters of the on chain Tx tax don’t even know what that means. It is not their fault. They believe that their coins are going to magically worth more because for some reason the rest of the world is going to start using the chain sending coins back and forth just to burn 1.2% of their own money…

CZ proposed burning but he did not mean that. There are so many ways to burn coins and bring value to the network, apps, games, buy backs and burns from treasury funds etc. Taxing transactions on chain is a guaranteed way to end a blockchain’s usability (unless it’s a meme coin and people want to do it for fun, for couple months in a bull market).

We are building a product that might help removing a good amount of LUNC/USTC from circulation/selling pressure and add utility and value to the chain. Waiting to see some recovery proposals and/or some announcements from the any dev team. But after witnessing this…craze… we 're not sure if we want to lose time and money helping a community that is on self destruct mode…

A proposal from @dfunk makes some sense since it is the only one introducing incentives to keep validators and dev teams committed to Terra Classic LUNC/UST at least until staking is activated and we find a way to fix this mess, but would like to see more analysis on the allocation/burning part.

Would also like to see some statements on classic-agora from Kwon, the core team, and devs form other teams. How do they see Terra Classic LUNC/UST? Will they still support it but mostly focus on new Terra? I think it is time that they participated and let everyone know. I also think it’s time to calm down and be polite to each other. How do we fix Terra Classic LUNC/UST and how do we move forward with the new Terra Luna.

Terra community and deserves to know.

To conclude, LUNC/USTC needs and is worth fixing. USTC needs a clean decentralised governance system
and LUNC needs a better designed and decentralised asset backed stable coin (USTC) in order to be successful. Needs good planning, serious proposals, good developers and a united community working as one for everyone’s interests.

Have a good weekend everyone.

4 Likes
8

Unfortunately, I think DK is too busy with himself at the moment to provide you with a respond.

9

Do Kwon is a Cheat/ Bluff, lost all my savings, either my Old Luna not listed on Coinswitch
or it has almost zero value on other exchange Binance, did not receive even One Luna2, I will never ever invest even a Panny in Luna2

2 Likes