In light of the new proposal from Do - nothing has changed. The aspect of knowingly removing value that sits behind a token in the product / project while allowing investors to continue to buy something you’re planning to make worthless, is ILLEGAL.
Many purchased after his ‘Stay Strong Tweet’. If the proposal of making Luna Classic passes - which I think he can bully and do anyway, raises even more legal flags around LFG assets and where they are.
Information leaking out that many transactions from LFG sales went to personal wallets - only an audit can verify.
The strength of the community is right here and now - standing up and voting against this Luna Classic and fork activity underway. If not - Do is in jail. Not to mention - the very ones who orchestrated things set themselves up before snap shot - are there wallets going to be airdropped with the new token…
DOIS NOT MORALLY OR LEGALLY FIT TO BE MAKING RECOVERY SOLUTIONS. VOTE HIM OUT AND NO FOR HIS PROPOSAL!
There are a lot of proposals to fix the current situation - however the one that seems to be getting the most traction is the fork and new token.
Before I’m judged - I’m a holder from $90 - I’m at a great loss, but I don’t agree with the new fork and token creation. Here is why.
First and primarily - legally you cannot do that. The time to consider this was at point zero - $0. The team needed to send out an advice to all exchanges to cease trading. This did not happen.
Now many millions have come to support the community, the project, or just make a quick trading dollar - whatever the motivation - there is nearly $1B new dollars that have flooded into LUNA and you want to wipe all of those believers, new believers, or existing holders that have come in to DCA in the hope they break even. You then want to give them less than 1c of their investment back - it’s over.
To be planning and discussing behind the scenes the removal of the existing token - in legal terms, across any of the jurisdictions Do may live in Asia - it is classified as "Conspiracy to Commit Fraud.’ Knowingly allowing people to lose money. A project in V2 status won’t go anywhere while the team is being convicted and tried, or hunted for conviction and arrest purposes.
Definition: Conspiracy fraud, therefore, is any situation where two or more people work together to develop a scheme to defraud.
Deliberate or not from the team, by letting the token continue to be traded while working to get rid of it behind the scenes is a scheme to defraud new buyers. It’s fact - nothing to deliberate or twist in that area.
For this reason that proposal cannot and should not happen or be discussed any further as an option, because the legal ramifications are huge, and then we all lose. Because fraud is on an Individual level - criminally charged individually they will be, no hiding behind a business or project name.
So a number of proposals are there to work off and burn the supply. I don’t think I’ve ever seen CZ comment so frequently on a project that isn’t his own, so he is just waiting to be asked in, if he isn’t already, to help with the burn process.
Additional transaction fee proposals, the depegging from UST is there, the paying out of the majority % of UST wallets, most not the big players.
The team has more than enough in the proposals to work out a plan that does NOT and should NOT include forking and a new token.
I have other friends affected and they’ve already engaged international lawyers, and this is how I know with the information feeding back that the project will never recover for 5-10 years while legal cases are hanging over your head for Conspiracy to Commit Fraud.
You pay out $UST holders (plenty of proposals here) - incentivise CZ and Binance - they could buy massive amounts of tokens, sell them higher and help with the burn and stabilise the price, supply comes down, new people return as fear is removed - builders keep building, and the leadership is NOT in jail.
I think so much isn’t being considered legally from a knee jerk reaction of new fork and token - and I’ve seen some briefs just on Singapore law if that goes ahead - wow. It never ever gets back to $90 or even half where I entered.
The only way a fork and new token works is an equal 1:1 allocation of tokens from old to new with a process of improving the structures by forks that reduces the supply. His dilution of holdings is the highly illegal fraud element.
This is not written or coming from any place of bitterness or upset - I own my decisions - but if you go with new fork and token proposal, you’ll be mired in legal affairs over focusing on a rebuild - may take a bit longer, but it’s done without emotion and with far more careful consideration than what has been put forward after Crash Day.