I think this is a well thought out idea, I would vote ‘Yes’.
4 Likes
This proposal has to do with Redline. Definitely YES.
7 Likes
Yea true i used choice stablecoin for ustc my big smart
And lost my money
This old you want read my think ustc : Burn ustc in Oracle Rewards Pool - #6 by NN78
1 Like
I? 
Big yes let’s do it 
3 Likes
we need to keep limited swap pools no minting of lunc should happen ever only minting of ustc if needed
3 Likes
Hello 
first before moving forward, I believe you have to be a little bit more precise and specific when you write your proposals on Agora as they always leave gray areas. Can you elaborate on the funding and budget needs for the L1 to work on this? I believe from a PR Perspective this details should be tied to any proposal as you are asking for funds and your approach is like asking for a blank check to the community with no details as to what would be the required funding.
Thank You
Strong YES from me!
4 Likes
Well …it also crashed 99.99% because USTC 
Extra taxes != repeg, man.
Need real plan. Stop distribution and start buyback.
If we do this, there would be no sales. This is the first point.
3 Likes
He isn’t asking for funding, afaik
3 Likes
you got my support and yes for that test environment, and the funding it need. Yet I hope that the mint feature will not be implemented for real again…
4 Likes
A yes from me! Put it up for voting please!
2 Likes
Sure, sounds reasonable. 
Alright.
This is problematic. There’s a lot of other LUNC-related L1 work that needs doing, pivoting so hard towards USTC repeg work while LUNC is in the gutter isn’t something that should be done. Especially not at a point where we’re still waiting on CEXs to approve Redline’s plan. And even if that were to happen, you can and should submit a new prop tied to only that, without bundling it with your own salaries and Q3 work. Bad take all around!
Yeah, nah. The “Community Oversight Committee” was staffed by influencers, none of which are devs. And y’all on the TGF/L1JTF also disbanded the COC a few weeks back, so using them as justification for this pivot is completely unreasonable and laughable.
This rests on the assumption that Redline’s prop will get CEX approval. So far it hasn’t. You can’t lay out L1 Q3 plans on the assumption that a single USTC repeg plan will get through multiple CEXs (and Binance, because if Binance doesn’t agree to help then the plan is deadd in the water).
Why do you always do this, @LuncBurnArmy? Why do you look for creative ways to grift the Community Pool, instead of focusing on the mountain of work you’ve still left to deliver from Q1 and Q2? You’d probably need all of Q3 just to catch up on previous deliverables, given how far behind schedule the L1JTF is.
With all due respect, this is bullshit, and you know it. When LUNC crashed a year ago, there were multiple depeg simulations modeled by the LUNA community (this was before Kwon’s fork). You’re basically asking to be paid in Q3 for work that was already done by people 12 months ago. 
Also, you CANNOT re-enable the mint/burn (via the Market Module) without first fixing the algo itself. You’d have known this is you’d spent even 10 minutes reading through the Terra documentation and thinking about how the whole thing works. Putting caps on it is a terrible idea which was started by Tobias. We either fix the algo, or the MM should stay inactive until that’s done.
A competent software engineer can do all this on their own in less than a month. The LUNC community doesn’t need to pay the salaries of yourself and the entire L1JTF for all of Q3 just so you guys can run data modeling and simulations (which by the way can’t account for real-world events because none of you have the chops or hardware to pull this off). This is basically smoke and mirrors designed to get your contract extended to Q3. And again, it all hinges on Redline’s prop being accepted by Binance - what if it’s not? Are you just going to sneakily remove the items from the lists above pertaining to that? I’d think so, since you seem to do that frequently - overpromise and underdeliver has become the L1JTF’s motto.
More smoke and mirrors. I’ve personally spent months looking into possible USTC repeg scenarios (and I did it for free, without trying to grift the LUNC community like you are), and they all boil down to solving the swap algo. So far no one’s managed to do that. And until that’s accomplished, there’s no need for “investigating USTC incentives” (lol, lmao), since the incentive is baked into TERRA-LUNA arbitrage and stablecoin/swap mechanics themselves. Do more research, Steve - you’re months behind the curve on this.
You can work on this and deliver it in Q2, after you’ve finished parity. I know you’re never gonna complete the remainder of your Q1+Q2 roadmaps, so you may as well finish Q2 doing something useful tied to USTC. But there’s no justifiable reason to use all of this as an excuse to print yourselves a Q3 salary.
Like I wrote above, spin up the USTC testnet and deliver it by the end of Q2 (assuming you don’t mess up parity by June 14th). But apart from that, please stop using Redline and his prop to cash your Q3 cheques.
Shalom! 
9 Likes
No with veto.
This is a YES vote. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to smoke it out.
3 Likes
100% YES we need a test environment, sooner the better
3 Likes
Absolutely, YES!
3 Likes
Yes, 100%.
4 Likes