Some of us stakers, have staked on the network since day 1. We had no opportunity to salvage any of our stake and had to watch it go to zero. I think stakers that supported the network should be priority before speculators and traders. I don’t see any solution where everyone will be happy at this stage.
2 Likes
The snapshot just needs to right before de-list not de-peg…the de-listing was the end of the road for trading pair.
Meu amigo deixe de ser ganancioso. Quanto mais detentores existirem, menos será o número de tokens disponíveis e assim teremos ótimos valores.
Isso é maravilhoso para quem perdeu muito dinheiro pre-crash
Acorda pra vida.
I am seeing a lot of proposals. This one looks very decent even though to be honest my hope is at it’s a a very low state right now. What it seems that will happen is that no one will do anything and we will just continue talking and eventually everyone moves on. It’s either we do something now or forget it.
1 Like
Guys & Girls stop coming up with repayment plans, thats not gonna happen and it shouldnt, its an investment and its a risk. Nobody guarantees for your investment, its crypto, defi… If you want guarantees go to a bank get ,2% and your isured up to 99k.
Nobody was complaining while they where recieving the 20% APR.
George Soros disnt go to jail for braking the bank of england. This was an unfortunate event that we need to learn from, update the ecosystem make it safer and start healing.
Like CZ said forking wont add value.
1 Like
Hey,
I agree with it all, a beautiful and creative way of revival! A way to restore the terra luna reputation with integrity which detrimental to LUNA2.
I am a small holder, less than 50k UST, only half was in ANC the rest i supported via liquidity, bootstraping and so on I’m an investor, a user and a supporter for many new protocol.
I understand i might suffer some losses and i might get 50% of my UST and it’s fine, in order for it to work and for the outside world to see something quiet remarkable in my eyes, we should all take a step back, take a breath and see also the half full glass.
We all took part in this experiment, we all ignored many warnings along the way (i did at least), i was blind for my own reasons, so i take responsibility for my self and my choices.
I would love to see us being more flexible and celebrate that if this plan will become a reality, it is so much better than the current state and it brings back the potentials we held before the crash.
I’m gratful for all the bright minds who come together to find the most elegant solution with a caring intent.
Thank you! 
2 Likes
My total support. Do Kwon’s plan is not ideal. FatMan’s does not preserve the future.
2 Likes
Of course, in fact I held (and keep holding) significant amounts of both Luna and UST, they just require different treatment.
If there’s a fork, Luna holders at depeg must receive most of the new tokens, plain and simple.
If there’s not a fork, the mint/burn mechanism should be restarted and the Luna emissions should be airdropped to Luna holders (in all of its forms) at depeg, to start compensating the dilution they have suffered (I detail it more in my proposal).
If u leave out your ust buyers who bought the dip praying for a repeg your making a mistake. UST period needs to be paid back in full if its going to be paid back. You can set a max cap but u shouldnt discriminate on who deserves compensation. Good luck with getting anybody to support your new chain if yall burn us like that. Chains always need new capital. And u better off wit folks who made money wit Terra than all the bitter people who lost
A simple/naive solution to also refund UST holders who sold after depeg at loss is asking them to buy back UST and put it back to the same wallet before the refund happens. So two snapshots will be taken, one at depeg and another at a future date, publicly announced. For each wallet, the smaller UST amount of 2 snapshots are eligible for a refund. If you haven’t sold anything, you get the same back. If you sold but bought back some, the bought back part up to what you had before depeg will be eligible. This will also create buying pressure on UST and helps move the price in a favorable direction.
2 Likes
I like it in theory but its all moot unless LFG ponies up the cash to support and I’m not seeing any signs from them that, that is going to happen.
1 Like
Interesting
As a software engineer for the last 20 years, I think any proposal that creates a new coin is going to fail or not get enough user traction to be as successful as what Terra became.
We all lost money with the crash and it sucks but how we proceed is what decides how much of a user fallout we have and or lack of trust in the builders. I put my trust in the current software and acknowledge that a bug was exploited. But it was just that a bug being exploited.
If the team decides to give up and start a new coin then they will also lose my trust because they would rather contribute to the bad stereotype of DeFi projects instead of fixing any bugs and proving to everyone that decentralized finance needs decentralized money.
There is absolutely no reason for me to trust a new coin as the only thing that carries on is the builders, the name and maybe the looks but the software will be completely different. What happens if a bug is exploited in the new system? Are the builders going to give up again and start a new coin?
Not saying these are the answers, but a couple things we can do to start moving forward:
- I am for the Angel Investors and/or providing a funding pool as mentioned in this proposal because no matter what happens, some people will want to exit.
- We can increase transaction fees and burn a percent of them to reduce total supply.
- We can add a cap to minting so there isn’t an infinite amount of Luna. Maybe a hardcoded cap or maybe a ratio of some kind between UST/Luna
take advantage of the marketing exposure, rebuild, burn and slow buyback or any solution on transactions etc but do NOT fork, this needs support from everyone not the ‘clique’
1 Like
Nice proposal YK!
One big thing that needs to be figured out is are we looking at UST holders on all chains? And all CEX?
I for example was an Anchor user on Avalanche and sold my UST at a 60% loss
you ‘sold’
From my understanding, it sounds fair.
Don’t forget, Luna stakers had no chance to get out with the 21-day withdrawal time. They went down with the ship.
Also consider, Anchor depositors had time enough to withdraw their funds and even move them to another chain, as well as having the option of insuring their assets.
Moving on, Luna 2 should have a downside circuit breaker that works across all chains and CEX’s. Tradfi has them, why not us?
Tradfi has been draining crypto liquidity to cover their margin calls for a few weeks now, so Terra was attacked because of it’s high value, and just like military doctrine says, you attack the high value targets. We need proper defenses.
1 Like
I support this!
1 Like
it is not fair and they are trying to exploit you imo as you are sadly in the minority. Unbelievable imo. (Also the plan does not consider those who bought ust after de-peg trying to save the project.
Imo very unreasonable plan.
1 Like
Agreed, I don’t like Fatman’s proposal as it only focuses on interest of UST holders. I like this proposal way better than Fatman’s proposal.
2 Likes