How to rescue community with code

Hi Guys, I’m Jiyun, CEO of DSRV.

I want to share my thought about “How to rescue community with code”.
First, It looks like we have no method to achieve re-peg.
So, yes. Our “stable” challenge goes to failure.

But what I want to say now is not about “Stable“ but about “Rescue protocol”.
We should protect our community and all cryptos.
Because our failure make more effect on the entire crypto scene.

So, as a community rescue protocol, I thinking about a community(including TFL) fork with burn UST.
And need to think about compensation schemas. Can you guys share your thought about it?
We do have not much time.

Problems.

  • How we can manage VC or Whale dump?
  • How much compensation we can use with TFL’s luna.

This think almost the same as Sunny,

I also shared my opinion to TFL.
Me also don’t want to exclude them.
Don’t worry & Stay safe.

2 Likes

Hello, @Jiyun What is fork with burn UST? more detail please

Halt chain, burn UST, relaunch chain with a single luna token.
So needs some compensation to luna/ust holders.

2 Likes

When we do folk, will vesting work for dumping?

1 Like

Are you suggesting to fork at current status? e.g. 18B tokens of Luna?

If people consider builders on Luna to be valuable $10-20B, this would mean we can restore trading price of Luna to $0.5-1.0

Love the idea, because we cannot choose UST now, given the obvious death spiral. Luna market cap $200M with UST overhang still around $10B

That said, would there be need for compensation here given it is a ‘fork’? We can just let people to decide which chain to use, just like Ethereum vs Ethereum Classic.

3 Likes

If you can persuade enough builder community, you can just fork without UST and using snapshot of Luna holdings using the most recent block, and then just let the market (users) decide.

We will however have to rebrand completely, maybe something like best performing Layer 1, rather than chain with decentralised money

2 Likes

No, rollback needs.
So this is a tough but only way.

2 Likes

Jiyun, rollback does not sound like a good idea. You will never be free from judgement that people say handful number of validators picked a block which is the most favorable (stake wise) for them.

Most people who hold chunks since May 11-12 are lunatics, who had belief on Terra and were continuously dip buying (which turned out not to be a dip) for multiple days. If you rollback to some point on May 10, you will never be able to compensate the money people lost during the extreme downturn.

From my perspective, UST holders are mercenary users. Most of them were in for deposit in Anchor. The users we really should take and protect are Luna holders, so screw UST holders, no reason to compensate them. Stop the madness of issuance, we should delink UST and Luna first, so that we can stop the dilution now.

Understand given current validators’ voting power is extremely low now from total circulation due to massive issuance, you guys do have incentive to roll back. However, that’s just wrong. I recommend you guys to buy in market, accumulate your stake, and then do the fork.

If you really would like to do that, you should start with new Layer 1 with Cosmos SDK, rather than roll back.

5 Likes

Agree on a bit.
Good opinion.

But, I still think, the More clean ledger status is before the attack.
I know a little aggressive.

Thx.

2 Likes

It’s not ‘clean ledger’, it is where ‘people who had a lot of stake but did not buy in dip whole the way down’ wins. We need to protect community who have been buying infinitely down the road.

Again, you can buy your stake now at very cheap price. Luna market cap only USD 200M, even there’s slippage, I think you guys can aggregate enough stake to do this. Doing this with only 3~4% staking ratio, looks very bad. People will remember.

Thx.

2 Likes

Don’t want to do bad things even if our stake is big.
That is why I ask your opinion here, not in the governance section.
Anyway. every feed is very helpful.
We need more clear concepts.

i think we still should respect leadership from terra team. personally i don’t value any opinion to execute controversal action without terra team’s direction.

at this point, sunny’s tweet or any other validator’s opinion to significantly change the system without endorsement of terra team is meaningless. i don’t think it matches with repspective validator behavior.

two days are too short to decide the failure of leadership imo.

2 Likes

If the leadership wants to be respected, please follow below suggestion:

  1. vote to disconnect link between UST and Luna. This will stop inflationary pressure of Luna
  2. buy back lots of Luna in market. This would not cost a lot, again, market cap only USD 200M now
  3. fork the chain without UST with only Luna

by doing so, you can provide exit liquidity to long term holders who have been holding or buying luna all the way down. Also you don’t have to roll back.

Screw mercenary UST holders. They knew the risk at the first place. Luna getting dumped is on them, they should not have bank-run, and wait for the peg to comeback.

6 Likes

If we want to fork the chain then we need to do the following.

  1. keep it quiet and let everybody exit UST positions. UST will be considered a loss on the new protocol.
  2. Use a snapshot of luna per wallet (staked or/and unstaked, I just don’t care at this point) before the crash (including how much you did hold on the top X protocols, like Astroport).
  3. Launch the fork chain. I like your suggestion about the compensation.

Maybe we can start a new chain with sound money as collateral like wrapped Bitcoin.

1 Like

We should not fork with same concept. We will look like a joke. We need to discard the concept of UST, unfortunately.

Let the UST holders take hit. They knew the risk at the first place, nobody forced them to deposit in Anchor. True community users have always been Luna holders.

7 Likes

Another idea is to use a snapshot from before the crash to determine the luna amount on the fork chain pro-rata to the old chain. People who are still holding UST at the time of the chain halt can redeem them for new Luna (please lets rebrand, lol) on the fork chain. I would suggest an x day cooldown time before the halt. This is because people and protocols can use this period to get their UST back from, for example, lockdrops. I think everyone who sold their UST is better of in the current situation then on the fork chain. That’s why I would choice to compensate only the UST holders who are holding it at the time of the halt and to use a snapshot of Luna before the crash because the current Luna holders list is to inflated and people did panic sell or unstake everything.

2 Likes

We should exclude UST holders… ALL of UST holders are mercenary. They will try to exit once they are unlocked on their positions.

4 Likes

Who said? I have a lot of UST, didn’t sell and will not sell. I believe in the sovereign decentralized currency. Wake up.

3 Likes

ok, then you must be happy to go down with the decentralized sovereign. wish you my best.

4 Likes

Luna should sever the tie to UST, but to fork or take a snapshot that excludes true believers who have been buying Luna all the way down to current levels doesn’t make sense.

Any plans moving forward should reward those who haven’t unstaked, those who are still in liquidity pools. This proposal seems to do the opposite and reward those who may have already gotten some redemption value out of their Luna holdings.

2 Likes