Should 10% More Terra Luna Classic (LUNC) Be Minted To Burn It 50× Faster?

Faced with a new proposal to restructure UST and reduce the LUNC supply, the Terra Classic community has been split into two camps.

As reported by The Crypto Basic yesterday, a new proposal authored by some members of the Terra Rebels proposes to launch an algorithmic fungible token (AFT) to restructure TerraClassicUSD (USTC) and regain the dollar peg.

While the proposal promises to burn the LUNC token faster, it requires that 500 billion or about 10% more LUNC be minted to buy Bitcoin to collateralize the AFT.

So, should more LUNC be minted to burn it faster as proposed?

Would you mint 10% of the $LUNC supply to burn it 50X faster?

— Classy 👾 (@ClassyCrypto_) October 4, 2022

Notably, this question has split the LUNC community into two factions. While some believe it is a “no-brainer” as, in the end, the community wants faster burns, others like LUNC Burn assert it is a bad idea. Notably, the latter continuing its campaign against the proposal today, highlighted that there are no contingencies should the proposal fail.

Zero consideration for any $Lunc holder with zero contingencies factored in if it fails, he doesn’t care about $Lunc holders we are simply the bank to finance his experiment, to read this in his own words is is unbelievable @4lex_4sh4w_TR #lunc #luncburn #LUNCCOMUNNITY

— LUNC Burn (@LunaBurn_13) October 5, 2022

Fall-Out From Proposal Sparks Concerns That A Developer Could Hold The Chain Hostage As Developers Resort To Open Debate

It bears mentioning that another Terra Classic developer Tobias Andersen AKA Zaradar, is working on a separate proposal to repeg USTC that reportedly does not require the minting of more LUNC.

In response to the proposal from Alex Forshaw, Zaradar, who is one of the core developers, asserted quite authoritatively that no one will be minting LUNC tokens as long as he holds the reins. While some opposed to the proposal have rallied behind him, it raises concern as to whether a developer should prioritize his preference over the community should the community decide to support the proposal.

We can fix USTC without minting more LUNC. Don’t make other peoples bad ideas my personal problem and trust me when I say that as long as I’m in charge of the code no one will be minting additional LUNC tokens 🙏 pic.twitter.com/oG2zFREvOO

— Tobias Andersen (@ZaradarTR) October 4, 2022

It also highlights a lack of depth in the LUNC development team and a lack of incentives to attract new developers that could replace any that decide to hold the chain hostage. 

There are two devs working on the core platform, until more arrive, we are very much in charge of the code. Unless you feel like stepping in and helping out? 🙂

— Tobias Andersen (@ZaradarTR) October 4, 2022

Notably, Forshaw and Zaradar have resorted to a war of words on Twitter as they contrast their ideas. However, as the community awaits the proposal from the latter, LUNC DAO, a popular community validator, has welcomed the plurality of ideas and heated debates as facilitators of growth.

Now is a critical time for $LUNC. It’s very positive that a lot of proposals are being put forward to fix $USTC

With feedback from the community (both logical and pure emotional/narrative sentiment), these plans can be refined and we can move forward together as a community

— 🔥🙏 𝕃𝕌ℕℂ 𝔻𝔸𝕆 🙏🔥 (@LUNCDAO) October 4, 2022

– Advertisement –