This is s bad solution. terra 2.0 will fail. look at btc, there is no btc 2.0.
better sink this in your head, dreamers. buy back and burn will give back investors’ trust.
2 Likes
If it doesn’t go the way that it promised no one will trust the project for the second time!
TWO IMPORTANT NOTES
#1 REPAYMENT
- a large majority of UST holder have sold their UST at a loss. But if the snapshot was to be taken before depeg, this would mean that they would received more money than they originally had.
If John have 100K UST staked, and sold everything when UST was at 0,60 , He would have received 60K USD.
Now, Snapshot was taken when John had 100K UST STAKED, As per proposal, he would received , capped or not , 50K USD as compensation.
John have now 110K USD.
It mean the TFG will have to spend much more and people who cashed out early will received more USD than they had in the first place.
All the surplus would add up very quickly.
NEED to find a way to reimburse only LOST funds , caused by depeg, not the whole amount if John has already Sold his UST.
Secondly,
CEX HOLDING NOT TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION
Some people, like me, had 50% UST staked in Anchor, an 50% UST stake in Celsius.
What about all those people who had their UST staked into a CEX like BINANCE, NEXO, CELSIUS
If those CEX have one single Address, with 500 user and 2M UST ( as example) .it mean, they would be capped at 50K per address and fund could not be distributed fairly as if they were holding in their non custodial wallet.
In my example 50K USD compensation would be received for this one address sharing 500 Users. Make SENSE?
How this would be Addressed??
Morgan.
5 Likes
I support the proposal as a UST holder in Anchor.
This proposal or any “compensation” proposal is not going to work. We have to look at the big picture here (yes bigger than all the loses incurred by individual investors).
I don’t mean to sound harsh or unsympathetic. I lost value and it hurts, and I have in the past experienced being totally wiped out by investments like this that went wrong. I got into fincance and economics originally because I believe there is a way to make the system work for everyone, not just the uber rich. Thats why i invest in crypto, because of the massive potential it has to democratize wealth and finance for the whole world. I don’t expect to rich, and I have learned to expect losses as the price for investing in this new technology.
My interest in this specific situation is what a pivotal moment it is in the history of the technology on and finance in general. Successful management and recovery from this crisis has the potential to prove the blockchain (and more importantly defi) is a really a viable self sustaining financial sector. But mismanagement, and specifically fantasies like turning back the clock, do the opposite. I mean that proposal to fork and redistribute, is basically saying lets take the capital from some investors (particularly new investors) and redistribute it to old investors who lost money. It is literally a ponzi scheme. Can you imagine how bad it looks for the crypto market as a whole to have the one of the largest blockchain platform and the best performing hi-cap platform to simply devolve into a ponzi scheme. Imagine the ammo that would give to the opponents of blockchain, its basically what they have been saying all along.
2 Likes
Be careful everyone. A malicious actor is trying to get threads locked using offensive posts from throwaway accounts. He appears to be a supporter of Do Kwon’s proposal only. Be very careful with what you report as it will be used as justification to shut down our discussion and suppress this movement.
Please consider brining attention to this issue here: Unlock FatMan's Tiered Repayment Proposal Now
3 Likes
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
This topic was automatically opened after 4 hours.
We endorse this proposal.
Large UST holders (>50k) can be considered as speculative investors, who also doesn’t deserve to be kept in the dark. They can be given a portion(say 3-4%) from the 10% pool of ‘post de-peg investors’. Post-depeg investors knew what kind of risk they were getting into, their share can be reduced to 6-7%
1 Like
Too many sound
I am a supporter of the Fat Man Proposal but as you say it is not a comprehensive plan. So I am glad you have proposed such a holistic plan.
But this proposal post is a bit too long and difficult to understand. Could you write it in more simple English?
(There are many people on this forum who are not native English speakers including myself, and some of them don’t have the time to read the long post.
You should write like this
・UST holders → What happens to them?
・LUNA holders → what happens to them?
People who supported LUNA on the way down were buying 100s or 1000s of LUNA. Speculators are now buying millions of LUNA for a few dollars. Ninety-nine percent of this allocation would go to them.
UST hodlers till 250 k from snapshot day should be paid to the end from LFG. LFG was created because of this. This will bring small amount of trust to comunity and new project. Than create “New Luna” or “Luna 2” and another institutional investors will come to new project. But without restore 1 USD peg and pay small and medium Investors it will not work at all. It will look like a fraud and generate another machine to earn money for big guys.
Everyone is a speculator : the ones who funded Terra, the ones who bought at 1, 10, 100… Back to 0.0000006
It’s just a question of timing. Purchasing at 100 is not more noble than purchasing at 0.0001
1 Like
Question : in your scenario, why do we need a new chain ? It looks to me that the plan could be implemented without the need to fork, just airdrop the new token (which is a plus, it reduces complexity)
You cannot distribute the coins and funds of new Luna owners as you wish. With this you take the last trust in the coin and nobody will buy anymore + lawsuits would follow. Compensation must be made through TLF, not through theft of someone else’s funds.
I think the people who support this kind of proposal do so in the belief that people who bought LUNA while it was falling deserve to be rewarded. My point is that this won’t reward those people.
Personally, I’m not convinced that people who bought while it was falling should be compensated. As you say, they were speculating.
I definitely don’t think that people who now trading LUNA should receive any compensation for the trades they are currently making, yet those are the people who will receive almost all of this allocation.
Worst plan… Don’t separate luna holders by after depeg or before depeg… Separate by announcements of halting chain by @terra_money ın twitter…
You can’t buy millions of luna with pennies before the first announcement of halting blockchain.
Clear, thanks for the clarification.
Technically it will be very hard to identify at which price you entered because most of the volumes are happening on CEX.
At the end the price collapsed, so people who did nothing to support are as responsible as the ones who bought. I would not compensate any, and focus on what is benefiting the chain in the long term
It should become clear once it is understood how much funds LFG has left as to how to approach the situation, any decision to a) compensate a subgroup b) prioritise a subgroup cannot be made until the availability of funds is understood. As I see it , spending all LFG funding on making whole UST and having no regard to borrowers and stakers, validators and builders would mean that Terra is wholly reliant on new VC funding. This is absolutely unacceptable, builders are the best chance to keep the ecosystem intact.
I do not agree with compensating speculators at fractals of a cent for their greed.
I also disagree with pitting one group of people against each other , it has to be a plan that helps those in UST who came to Terra for stable, and the ecosystem borrowers, stakers and builders who generated that yield for them.