Why can't we get a burn with the inevitable fork?

So, okay; I get it. The majority seems to speak to creating a fork of Luna, thereby creating a new asset. As I understand it, the old acid will become Luna CLASSIC. Yet reading the comments in the forum, it would seem that many of us support some type of burn scheme to turn the hyperinflation of the current token and to be $LUNC around? Can we get this? I think we deserve this, and this COIN and it’s Blockchain should be owned by the people that still believe in it. Because, much like ETHEREUM (ETH) and ETHEREUM CLASSIC (ETC), LUNA and LUNA CLASSIC can coexist and both can have value. Can we get a vote on this?


As soon as the fork happended, UST will be no more. There will be no hyperinflation, this part is behind us.

To install a burning mechanism would be nice, but who will take the lead of LUNA (Classic)?

1 Like

Technically no, but 6.5T coins is a lot. If we can burn that to 650M, we will be in better shape. In fact, UST could be fixed as well. We might not call it a stablecoin anymore, but someone correctly identified it as a bond. The UST/LUNA system doesn’t have to be finished. UST perfectly pegged to one USD? YES. But UST need not be abandoned.
Can we vote or select someone?

1 Like