What the community really wants from DEV

Many developers and De-fi planners are proposing the idea of re-peg of LUNC.

A lot of ideas have been put forward in the last 6 months, but still no answers have been found.

It may be natural. We have been given a mission to create 98B dollars out of thin air. Not possible unless you’re the alchemist or wizard in the movies.

So they take a different approach. It’s not about recover USTC to $1, it’s about making it look like $1.

If the coin value reaches $1, the re-peg will be successful. It’s like Columbus’ egg. He succeeded in stand the egg. But the egg has lost its essence.


So, let me ask you a question here.

What does the LUNC community really want?

Every business starts with identifying customer needs.

Are they really wanting a $1 coin? Or do you want the 2 cent USTC to rise in price x 20?

Actually USTC $1 re-peg may not be what the community wants. It may be the price increase needed to get to $1. Fair enough.

Of course, not all communities think the same way. There may be people with a minority of different opinions, but this world is a structure where minority opinions are muted for the benefit of the majority. That’s why you need to figure out what the community wants first.

Once the right direction has been chosen, you need to design and market the product.

If you want to sell swimwear, you’ll have to go to the beach. If you sell swimsuits at the Grand Canyon, no one will buy yours.

Okay, you are a great educator and have written educational books that will be an inspiration for college students. By the way, no one will buy your book if you place it in children’s books section. Because they don’t know how great your book is.

Critically-beloved art directors are always in the spotlight at awards ceremonies. Their works are esoteric and profound. But they may not make much money from the movie.

The public loves blockbusters more than many art film masters. Because their movies aren’t deep, but they’re fun. So, the evaluations of the two are very different.

Of course, there are directors who are loved by both sides, like Steven Spielberg or James Cameroon. We call them masters or masterpiece. Is LUNC a masterpiece? It may have been, but not now.

Let’s take a closer look at the current situation of the LUNC chain and the needs of the community.

The community wants technological innovation in blockchain through LUNC.

Perhaps they don’t want a high degree of innovation from their L1 task force team.

The community wants to re-peg $1 USTC at the expense of the value of LUNC.

Well, as I mentioned before, they’re most likely looking at x50, not $1.

The community hopes that LUNC will use many utilities through LUNA’s dApp integration.

We all understand that there are technical problems here. TFL is working to overcome that, but a realistic alternative is to buy LUNA. But community don’t do that. Are there any other reasons?

The community wants the price of LUNC and USTC to return to their previous while maintaining the current system as it is.

This is a hypothetical ideal result. Everyone must be dreaming of this.

This is why the developer’s idea is meeting with so much opposition. There is no need to accuse them of not understanding your superior mechanisms. Because the plan you have in mind doesn’t fit their needs.

This is a trending meme in Korea. It is not my intention to imagine the community a monkey. :sweat_smile:

What I’m trying to say is, you have to get the public’s needs.

The secret to LUNC’s success in the past may not be that they have a better engineering team than any other chains.

They used to be the most prosperous of the algorithmic coin chains. So why did market makers and exchanges fund their projects?

What profit structure did they envision on this chain? If you consider their business revenue structure, you will find something behind the word $1.

It may not be $1 they are really after.

And in order to get their cooperation and LUNC to increase the price again, both the needs of the community and the needs of outside of investors must be met.

WEB3 can be established only when all participants benefit from it. It will be difficult for a chain to revive only with the ideology of decentralization.

This post may not appeal to all communities. Respect for diversity is also Crypto’s philosophy.

Even if you disagree with me, I respect you. :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:


While certainly a thrilling tale on speculation what the Community wants, without encumbering details on such unnecessary points as:
How to achieve it with what Community has?
How to maintain or exceed the expectations on a long term scale?

Obviously, a sensationalist hit piece, yet it left me questioning - what was or is the underlying purpose of this article?

This means that developers’ goal should be to increase market prices, not $1 repeg. My long term saving proposal is one of them. That’s why I request to binance IRI fund instead of governance vote.


But I have some different opinions.
These genius definitely know what the community want.But for some reason they can’t choose.
I remember ED said after the rejecting of their repeg proposals “If the community don’t want to choose the fastest way,we only can choose the slower way.”
That’s why they want to make lunc another bitcoin.After the community angry about their “bad ideas”(Actually these ideas will benefit us in long term).They only can use the slowest method to revive this chain.
That’s why we see they are doing some changes to the foundation of this chain.And we see they have done alot in this.
My opinion,if they and we already know what is best for us,why not try to educate more people to supporting?


“They should increase market prices”.

How do you propose they do that? Utility that people want, so more new money flows in and less money out?
Would it make sense to have a working, stable, fast, secure chain for it?
Would the influx of new money be helped by having actually good and decent chain as a platform to attract customers?

About Binance IRI - Let us know how it goes for your particular funding needs.

Great question!
Let’s do it.

1 Like

If we can afford the devs hopefully. ( This is the first priority IMO)

Personally i would rank the priorities like that:

  1. Stabilize the chain and update to parity with LUNA 2.0 / Cosmos so IBC’s can work properly and give way for new projects/utility/interactions.

2.Stimulate/Aid ways to deflate the LUNC supply ( IMO the 1.2% should’ve stayed a little longer to help until we are up to parity and utility comes), luckily we have quite a few solid teams working and supporting that.

3.Adress USTC, a lot of people probably will not agree with me because they want a quick 50x on their investment but IMO investing in a failed stable coin is not the smartest thing to do.

I support the USTN (brand new AFN(not stablecoin)) plan with the condition to airdrop the new token 1:1 with the holdings of people affected in the crash. With the new upcoming laws that are targeting to ban stablecoins (USTC will probably be used as an example why they need to be banned) we might be better off to start clean and make it compliant because chances are , even if we work hard to repeg, it might be banned later. I also take into account that LUNA2 was dropped to them as a compensation but that could be discussed.

There i see a lot of threads of people requesting a reverse split of LUNC but wouldnt it make more sense to reverse split the USTC /50 and directly repeg it (Without touching the pre crash wallets ofcourse) and figure out some kind of mechanism to keep the peg (RP / CP fund or a big selloff tax until things get stable). Thats the only way that makes sense to me.

I am also curious if its possible Lunc and Luna2 to be somehow pegged to 1 and the same coin to make it twice as stable and secure.

As always this is my opinion only and i would be curious to see what other people think.

As a product manager I think that the end goal of $1 repeg is the last milestone in a long blank roadmap of mini milestones to lead us to that number. The more products we can test the more value and in demand the either token; ustc or Lunc will get. We need a Lunc hackathon! I’d love to host and support one!

1 Like

Just something to consider:
LUNA community pool > 341.76M luna or 641.58M $ (current price)
LUNC community pool > 1.1B lunc or 0.178M $ (current price)
That’s one reason development is secured for the former and questionable for the latter. So, it’s something that must be fixed for LUNC, community pool or chain’s budget must be increased.

@SwordDemon The biggest problem is that even if the professor is passionate, there is no way to educate if the students don’t join a class. You need to provide bait to get their attention. Or to give an example instead of a theory. Visible and working examples train people the fastest. You too can design a profit structure without resorting to so-called geniuses. Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and all the great companies started in their garages.

@Tonu_Magi Your question is a common question for all CEOs and chain development teams. If there was only one answer to that question, everyone in the world would be rich. For questions from a business point of view, you should start with Why to find a wise answer. Not How.
And questions related to Binance are front running.

@TheBulgarian USTN’s biggest problem is its huge initial capital. The market price of LUNC may plummet before the project even starts. If I were a LUNC whale, I would sell all my coins on the market before the proposal to mint tens of millions passed. Alternatively, a short selling position is also a good idea. Because LUNC price must be fall down.

The next problem is, would people pay a dollar if they knew about a BTC reserve made up of 60 cents? The hypnosis of algorithmic stable coins has been broken. FTX went bankrupt due to a bank run because not enough of reserve. People withdrew billions of dollars from binance under the misconception that its reserves were 3% short. Times have changed. Every people check reserves now. Just changing the price tag on it doesn’t make people buy it.

I don’t hate Alex. However, I would like to inform you that the probability of success is slim compared to the risks scattered in the plan.

@Luna2TheMoon Anyone can come up with an idea. Even if the proposal doesn’t pass, someone else will get another inspiration from the idea. Be brave. I look forward to your ideas.

@pj20 That’s why I’m knocking on the Binance IRI fund. If we don’t have internal resources, we have to bring in external resources.

1 Like

The underlying point - while certainly thought provoking piece, it lacks any substance that could be attached to the realism of this situation nor does it carry any merits on how or even why.

It’s a round talk of generalities. We have enough of those, don’t we?

@Tonu_Magi bullshit is not a opinion. I’m shame on you. I saw your bullshit several times. Maybe you remember me.

1 Like

Parker, wash your hands after typing.
As to your question:
I have surely seen you around, since you have posts everywhere, but otherwise I don’t remember anything noteworthy from you. Should I or…? Honest question.

Yet, as you are now here:
What are your thoughts about this article?
**By repeg of LUNC, OP means USTC and 98b debt is 9.8b dollars “debt”. By “debt” it is meant that circulating supply is at 9.8B and holders/owners can be expected to sell off their assets, while the underlying asset has no reserves to back up 9.8b load.

Lunc being native governance token and USTC being our eventual, future stable coin with a 1 dollar value. If the plans carry fruit and re-peg of USTC (not LUNC) are successful.

And by using absolute values or giving the option of multipliers, he is hinting how some investors maybe looking to multiply their bag as X value in terms of price appreciation, while others might be looking for an X value as the point where their investment is ripe for plucking and picking.
Yet seeing as each investor, trader, hodler approaches this thematic differently. Some even go by simply years and dates and the underlying value of this article is to reveal such insight in a form of asking questions from the reader…What thoughts did it bring you?

Do you felt it was perhaps stating the obvious, while not proposing any groundbreaking idea on how to achieve price appreciation or was it meant simply as a vague social commentary? Reach for values, but also, multipliers are good?

He did have that comic he borrowed from the internet. Perhaps that redeems it? Do be sure to give your thoughts. Mayhaps I’ll remember you next time then?. :slight_smile:

@Tonu_Magi Dumb people don’t know how to ask questions. There are no good answers to bad questions. The question you’re asking is bullshit, but what kind of answer are you expecting?
Why are you wasting time in the agora of chains that you don’t even expect prices to go up? Don’t have a job? The questions you ask are just a way to get into trouble with the other person. Your level of knowledge was astounding as you totally agreed that an anonymous developer who did not disclose any career would withdraw from the oracle pool to create their own DEX. How can all your comments be dumb? Shame on you.

@X-fileperseek When the price goes up, it’s good for everyone. But I’m curious why you didn’t buy newLuna and still stay on LUNC. TFL has already explained the technical difficulties. LUNC’s support will be less. What kind of future do you see here?

When some core developers left the TR team in Nov and criticized each other on social media, I thought the hope of the LUNC chain was gone.
Fortunately, brilliant developers formed a task force, and I thought that the new team needed a new roadmap. I am not qualified to advise them. That’s why I wrote this article what is the community’s point of view.

As you said, bad questions don’t lead to good answers. Developers were immersed in the question of 1 dollar re-peg from may 2022.
They couldn’t find their way because they set near-impossible goals.

However, incrementally increasing the value of the chain provide a lot more freedom of selection to developers.
LUNC is already listed on several CEXs and they are also helping the chain develop.

Layer 1 is like a platform. The platform’s success depends on securing a large number of users. LUNC is very valuable as a platform. Since it is in an advantageous position than any other coin project starting from ground zero, the value will rise quickly if we can have the right direction.

The two proposals I posted earlier are just such a process. If you have a proposal that is better than my props, it would be natural to adopt it.
Looking at LUNA’s roadmap, it seemed like they wanted to be the Shopify of the cosmos ecosystem. LUNC will also be able to occupy a prominent place within its ecosystem.

@Tonu_Magi No, that comic is very appropriate for your level.
You still say USTC is a stable coin. It’s reminded me of a person wearing a old dress claiming aristocratic lineage in 19st is walking on the a city centre. Aren’t you curious what passers will think? The days of nobility are over. Go to work at McDonald.

Tommy, despite your poor life choices or lack of formal education, USTC-s only outlook is to be re-pegged as it once used to be.

If you read twice, you may spot that is exactly what I wrote. Not that it is currently, but it will be if re-pegged to the status.

Please, be mindful of reading twice, while in McDonalds. Certainly a well established gainful employement venue for you.