USTC Incremental Repeg, Buybacks, Staking, Swaps

Thanks for the great effort you clearly put in, this should definitely be explored further. Yes for me


On point like always dude. Just. Quick note.instead of having a fix price of let’s say 1 dollar,why not having a algorithm stage peg. Let’s say apply the tax of X until the price is X+0.1,when we have enough colleterar to defend the peg against X+0.1 release the fees to create moviment again. that being said you have my support it seems that you are on the right track.


Yup you’ll see that I’ve mentioned disabling the Terra<>Terra swaps in phase 1 until the oracle and algo is fixed. It would be one of the first things we do.

And yes this will have to be tested vigorously prior to implementation


“Take risks now and do something bold. You won’t regret it” ~ Elon Musk

Aside from this, the fail safe mechanism provided by dynamic peg divergence tax can prove to be highly effective in its targeted approach.

The buyback aspect of the protocol offers an efficient solution to recapitalising Ustc, reducing Lunc supply via unidirectional swap pool and the same can be said of savings/staking module irt ustc circ supply.

Of course, Oracle fix is first on the agenda.

All things considered, i can safely say that there’s no better time than the present to move full steam ahead with a definite YES to this prop.


Seems a great logical way for keeping lunc alive. Always been a fan of repegging.

I’ve faith and excitement about this.


Sorry I probably didn’t make that clear enough in the prop… Yes this is exactly the plan, an incremental repeg, so we’d begin around market price say $0.025 and pull up incrementally from there until we reached $1.


Building Divergence Protocol and getting it implemented all over seems to be a massive obstacle at hand to over come. But who said things are going to be easy. Lets do it!

It’s a yes for me Duncan is a great guy but I like this better


I have a question,if buyer always lost $0.05,nobody wants to buy.Because they always lose money by selling.So what’s the motivation of their buying?


Can anyone calculate how long it will take, after the implementation of this idea, for the USTC to return to $1 again?


You’ve a potential near 50x from today’s prices so there is incentive to buy. We are nearly at parity so demand is coming plus you’ll be able to now stake/save it for rewards too.


You mean if a arbitrageur wants to make money,he need to lock his bag in some liquid pool for a while?okay,that’s another benefit for liquidity-always less supply.

But it seems a hard mode for arbitrageur.Because they always want to fast-in and fast-out.I don’t know what it means in future deposits.Maybe we need more test or a small scale experiment.


No arbitrage only occurs with the Unidirectional swap pool. And that pool is only open while the price is above peg. So providing your not doing massive volume, you swap your LUNC to USTC for a profit. Sell your USTC for $, and as the price is above peg when you sell, you pay no fee. So no you wouldn’t need to hold, but the arbitrage opportunities will be limited to swap pool supply.


In the event that CEXs say no. Can we partially implement this on chain on Dexs? This way at least we would have a workable prototype and can present it to CEXs in the future in the event that it is successful.

For sure I understand this is an experiment with no guarantee of success. It’s a yes from me even with have to experiment on chain first.

Let’s do it, :handshake:


CHAT GPT’s response.

The Divergence Protocol proposed in the text seems to have a sound theoretical basis. The idea of implementing a dynamic fee that increases as the market price diverges from the peg price can help incentivize traders to maintain the peg and discourage them from selling USTC below the peg price, thus reducing the likelihood of a death spiral. Additionally, using the fees collected to buy back USTC and maintain the peg can help recapitalize the token and restore confidence in the system.

However, as with any complex economic system, there is always a risk that the proposed protocol could have unintended consequences or be subject to manipulation by actors with significant resources. Therefore, it would be important to thoroughly test and simulate the protocol before implementing it in practice and to continually monitor and adjust it as needed to ensure its effectiveness


+1 mais… je ne suis pas intéressé par le risque de vente de mon $ à 0,95 , donc je n’achète pas d’ustc… Ou alors j’achète car je ne suis pas un spéculateur et j’ai une garantie de fond sur la valeur de mon ustc. Ne pas oublier l’utilité première des stablecoins: ce n’est pas pour de la spéculation forex (bien que certaines baleines peuvent se permettre de jouer sur les cent…), c’est pour de l’échange et de la capitalisation sécurisée blockchains. J’espère que comme moi, vous utilisez un traducteur :wink: Bonne journée :slight_smile:
PS: je vote oui :wink:


Great job, my vote is yes and I hope the cexs support it. For the first time a coherent and sensible proposal, it has everything to work out, without perfect minting and the best the repeg gradually. You managed in a simple way (of course having the simple idea is always more difficult) to unite the LUNC and USTC groups. as it will burn a lot of LUNC AND USTC too.



1 Like

How dare you show your face? When are you going to pay back the money you cheated out of the community?


Let’s do it already!