Two tokens, Two snapshots and justice for all

The people that held Luna did it because they wanted a volatile asset to capture the amazing upside Luna has had until the attack. Those that held UST did so because they wanted an stable asset able to generate yield in a predictable manner. Both kinds of community members have been equally vital in the growth of Luna and both kinds should be compensated according to what they have lost.

My proposal, create Luna V2 and UST V2 (maybe rename both?). Make two snapshots and distribute the new tokens for those that held Luna or UST before the attack AND kept holding until whenever new tokens are distributed. Distribute to the holders according to the smallest amount they held when comparing the two snapshots:

  • Example 1: Especulator Sarah had no Luna at the time of the attack but bought a gazillion at 0.000027. Shouldn’t receive anything.
  • Example 2: Johnny Rekt, having lost confidence in the project and the team after the attack, sold half of his 30000 UST at 0.73 each (not a bad deal), so he should receive UST V2 according to the 15000 UST he had remaining.

if the priority is, paraphrasing Do Kwon:

“What we should look to preserve now is the community and developers that make Terra’s blockspace valuable – I’m sure our community will form consensus around the best path forward for itself, and find a way to rise again.”

Setting individual interests aside, It is pretty obvious that the community are those that held both before AND after the crash, be it Luna or UST, those that interacted with the chain, that had skin in the game before the attack,that kept believing in the project, the team and THEIR WORDS AND PROMISES, that remained patient awaiting a solution while seeing the bank run unfold in front of them.

The distribution of the new tokens should include the tokens held on chain, staked in the different protocols or providing liquidity in Terra or other L1s.

Should not include the tokens in centralised exchanges, as these are the ones that have been used to especulate, dump, and mess with the peg in general.

By the way, for Christ sake, who in the hell would allow perpetual trading in an stable coin?!

Protocols and devs of the ecosystem should be awarded also the new tokens depending of their previous holdings as outlined above, plus whatever incentives where initially planned.

Regarding UST v2 it should be collateralised, and it should be in the hands of community members more versed in tokenomics to determine the best design possible given the circumstances.

In my humble opinion, the best would be making UST overcollateralized (2x), 100% a basket of assets (including BtC and censorship resistant stable coins) + 100% Luna. Basically, something similar to USN of Near, but with extra focus on survival against attacks, regulations, etc.

If at the moment there are not enough reserves, The collateral could be partial, as long as it is designed to really keep the peg it would be easier in the current situation, for example, a basket of one third btc (where are the reserves?), one third stablecoins (where are the reserves?) and one third Luna, to allow scalability and incentives.

If fractionally collateralised, there should be a measures to raise the collateral as soon as possible, maybe developing a protocol like abracadabra money and mim but for UST.

The algorithm working as intended has led the protocol into a death spiral but is not the cause of it, it’s been human greed, lack of planning and preventive measures, slow reaction, and an unhealthy dose of ego.

That has nothing to do with the algorithmic nature of UST, and the catastrophe and resulting disgrace for thousands of people should be honoured learning the lessons and applying them, compensating the believers in the project instead of jumping to the next project with billions in the pocket and leaving behind the corpses.

Wishing you all the best.

1 Like

and what about the people who bought after the attack. Just because you held some coin that crashed and want your money back is not a reason to screw those who purchased what they thought was a dip



Not a good proposal, I would guess this is very biased. Luna it’s in entirety was speculative and everyone should of acted accordingly or bought insurance on it if they had too much tied up. UST was more proposed as an investment account where people put huge amount of their savings. UST should be the priority and how that is done is really all that should be discussed. The idea of doing up to 250k prior to depeg event per address is a really good proposal. The only problem with this is the largest whales with the most amount of power and influence will object but overall it does seem like the right thing to do with a way to bake in them getting their money back in full overtime through a fully collateralized stable coin in the future or a rebooted Luna.

This proposal is completely against the spirit of crypto. You can’t just decide like a dictator that someone’s Luna is worth less because he bought it very cheap or because he had no intention to hodl. Luna is a fungible token and every token should be treated the same. By the way, I didn’t buy Luna at pennies. Those that did are lucky and do not deserve any punishment.

lol basically asking for bailout. just save luna and ditch UST

I bought all my LUNA on:
May 9 (167.86 LUNA) @ 60.00CAD, + a further (58.65) LUNA at 44.33CAD.
May 10 I bought (49.84) LUNA at 24.97CAD
May 11 (777) LUNA at 1.35CAD + (800.29) LUNA at .56CAD
May 12 (188560) LUNA at 0.01194CAD which I think is the last purchase before de-list. This represents an investment of over $14000.00 that in a period of 72 or so hours your aglorithm deflated into 42 bucks!

How am I to be compensated for V2?

1 Like