This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
One bad day not the end of the world
👍19🤣13🔥7
In recent developments, a major disagreement has been brewing in the Terra Luna Classic (LUNC) community after a popular validator, MrDiamondhandz, strongly opposed a new governance proposal.
In an X post, MrDiamondhandz, who runs LuncLiveOrg, called the proposal one of the worst in recent times. He warned that it could have serious consequences for the network if approved.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍10👨💻2
Terra Classic Proposal for Sub DAOs
The governance proposal under criticism seeks to create a Terra Classic Sub-DAO. This proposal hinges on plans to decentralize decision-making processes within the LUNC ecosystem.
It also suggests creating a special team to respond to emergencies without waiting for full governance approval. The goal is to make decision-making faster and more efficient.
However, this proposal has spurred mixed reactions among community members. Critics claim it could grant excessive, unchecked power to a select group and undermine the blockchain’s decentralized ethos.
Similarly, critics fear that bypassing traditional governance mechanisms could lead to decisions misaligned with the broader interests of the LUNC ecosystem.
Notably, the proposal has garnered 39.41% approval, 7.95% opposition, and 25.47% votes marked as “No with veto.” The voter turnout is 28.95%, falling short of the 40% quorum required for passage.
The governance proposal under criticism seeks to create a Terra Classic Sub-DAO. This proposal hinges on plans to decentralize decision-making processes within the LUNC ecosystem.
It also suggests creating a special team to respond to emergencies without waiting for full governance approval. The goal is to make decision-making faster and more efficient.
However, this proposal has spurred mixed reactions among community members. Critics claim it could grant excessive, unchecked power to a select group and undermine the blockchain’s decentralized ethos.
Similarly, critics fear that bypassing traditional governance mechanisms could lead to decisions misaligned with the broader interests of the LUNC ecosystem.
Notably, the proposal has garnered 39.41% approval, 7.95% opposition, and 25.47% votes marked as “No with veto.” The voter turnout is 28.95%, falling short of the 40% quorum required for passage.
👌6❤2👍2👨💻1
The Terra Luna Classic Proposal Pushback
MrDiamondhandz has emerged as a vocal critic of the proposal. In an X post, he termed it a realistic effort to develop centralized legitimacy under the pretense of decentralization.
Meanwhile, a LUNC Telegram group screenshot has added to the debate. In the chat, a community member said they might leave the blockchain if the proposal fails. Another user agreed, raising concerns that the issue could split the community.
Speaking on the above, MrDiamondhandz pointed out that some supporters of the proposal have even threatened to leave if it does not pass. However, he firmly believes their departure would benefit the Terra Luna Classic network.
Unfortunately, this dissension comes as the Terra Luna Classic (LUNC) community recently celebrated a major achievement. Reports show that the total number of LUNC tokens burned in the network has passed 400 billion.
MrDiamondhandz has emerged as a vocal critic of the proposal. In an X post, he termed it a realistic effort to develop centralized legitimacy under the pretense of decentralization.
Meanwhile, a LUNC Telegram group screenshot has added to the debate. In the chat, a community member said they might leave the blockchain if the proposal fails. Another user agreed, raising concerns that the issue could split the community.
Speaking on the above, MrDiamondhandz pointed out that some supporters of the proposal have even threatened to leave if it does not pass. However, he firmly believes their departure would benefit the Terra Luna Classic network.
Unfortunately, this dissension comes as the Terra Luna Classic (LUNC) community recently celebrated a major achievement. Reports show that the total number of LUNC tokens burned in the network has passed 400 billion.
🔥11👍2
It is worth mentioning that despite market volatility and controversy, LUNC’s price has stayed relatively stable, with no significant fluctuations observed.
However, Investors closely monitor the situation, as substantial governance changes could influence market sentiment. As of this report, Terra Classic was trading at $0.00006361, increasing by 1.11% in the last 24 hours.
In related news, CoinGape reported that the Terra Luna Classic community is considering reducing the 21-day waiting period for withdrawing staked LUNC.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥5👨💻3
LUNC Price Drop Causes & Speculations
The sudden fall of Terra Luna Classic (LUNC) does not appear to be directly tied to a specific technical problem or hack in recent news as of March 24, 2025. Historically, the dramatic collapse of LUNC and its associated stablecoin TerraUSD (USTC) occurred in May 2022, when USTC lost its peg to the US dollar, triggering a death spiral that wiped out billions in value. This event was not due to a hack or a technical failure in the traditional sense but rather a combination of market dynamics, algorithmic instability, and loss of confidence in the system. Some have speculated about external attacks or manipulation (e.g., by figures like Sam Bankman-Fried, as mentioned in X posts), but no definitive evidence has confirmed this as the sole cause.
Looking at more recent developments, there’s no clear evidence from available sources of a new hack or technical issue causing a sudden fall in LUNC’s price around this date. Recent news about LUNC focuses on community efforts like token burns (e.g., over 406 billion LUNC burned), governance proposals, and market sentiment rather than a specific incident like a hack. For instance, posts on X mention transaction errors due to blockchain congestion being resolved, but this is not linked to a price drop. Meanwhile, broader crypto market events—like the $1.5 billion Bybit hack in February 2025—have caused general market jitters, which could indirectly affect LUNC’s price, though no direct connection is reported.Here’s a breakdown of the key reasons:
Depegging of TerraUSD (UST): LUNC was closely tied to TerraUSD (UST), an algorithmic stablecoin designed to maintain a 1:1 peg with the US dollar. Unlike fully collateralized stablecoins (e.g., USDT), UST relied on an arbitrage mechanism with LUNC to stabilize its value. When UST fell below $1, holders could burn UST to mint LUNC, and vice versa, theoretically balancing supply and demand. However, on May 7-8, 2022, UST began losing its peg, d#ropping as low as $0.98 due to large sell-offs, possibly triggered by coordinated withdrawals or market manipulation.
Algorithmic Instability: The UST-LUNC system lacked sufficient backing or mechanisms to handle extreme volatility. As UST depegged, users burned it to mint LUNC, flooding the market with new LUNC tokens. This caused LUNC’s supply to skyrocket (eventually reaching trillions of tokens) and its price to plummet from around $80 to fractions of a cent, creating a "death spiral." The system couldn’t absorb the pressure because it depended on constant demand for both UST and LUNC, which evaporated.
Mass Panic and Loss of Confidence: The initial depegging sparked panic among investors. Major players, including exchanges and liquidity providers, began dumping UST and LUNC. For example, over $2 billion in UST was unstaked from the Anchor Protocol (a lending platform offering 20% APY on UST deposits) in early May, exacerbating the sell-off. Social media and news amplified the fear, leading to a bank-run-like scenario where trust in the Terra ecosystem collapsed.
Potential Market Manipulation: While not definitively proven, there’s speculation of orchestrated attacks. Some reports and lawsuits (e.g., from the SEC against Terraform Labs) suggest large entities or traders might have intentionally destabilized UST by dumping massive amounts on exchanges like Binance and Curve Finance. Posts on X and later analyses have pointed fingers at figures like Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX/Alameda, though concrete evidence remains debated.
Overreliance on Anchor Protocol: Much of UST’s demand came from Anchor’s unsustainable 20% yield, which attracted billions in deposits. When doubts about UST’s stability grew, withdrawals from Anchor accelerated, draining liquidity and exposing the system’s fragility. By May 9, UST was trading at $0.91, and the spiral intensified.
Failed Recovery Efforts: Terraform Labs, led by Do Kwon, attempted to stabilize UST by deploying reserves (e.g., Bitcoin from the Luna Foundation Guard), but these efforts were too little, too late. By May 12
The sudden fall of Terra Luna Classic (LUNC) does not appear to be directly tied to a specific technical problem or hack in recent news as of March 24, 2025. Historically, the dramatic collapse of LUNC and its associated stablecoin TerraUSD (USTC) occurred in May 2022, when USTC lost its peg to the US dollar, triggering a death spiral that wiped out billions in value. This event was not due to a hack or a technical failure in the traditional sense but rather a combination of market dynamics, algorithmic instability, and loss of confidence in the system. Some have speculated about external attacks or manipulation (e.g., by figures like Sam Bankman-Fried, as mentioned in X posts), but no definitive evidence has confirmed this as the sole cause.
Looking at more recent developments, there’s no clear evidence from available sources of a new hack or technical issue causing a sudden fall in LUNC’s price around this date. Recent news about LUNC focuses on community efforts like token burns (e.g., over 406 billion LUNC burned), governance proposals, and market sentiment rather than a specific incident like a hack. For instance, posts on X mention transaction errors due to blockchain congestion being resolved, but this is not linked to a price drop. Meanwhile, broader crypto market events—like the $1.5 billion Bybit hack in February 2025—have caused general market jitters, which could indirectly affect LUNC’s price, though no direct connection is reported.Here’s a breakdown of the key reasons:
Depegging of TerraUSD (UST): LUNC was closely tied to TerraUSD (UST), an algorithmic stablecoin designed to maintain a 1:1 peg with the US dollar. Unlike fully collateralized stablecoins (e.g., USDT), UST relied on an arbitrage mechanism with LUNC to stabilize its value. When UST fell below $1, holders could burn UST to mint LUNC, and vice versa, theoretically balancing supply and demand. However, on May 7-8, 2022, UST began losing its peg, d#ropping as low as $0.98 due to large sell-offs, possibly triggered by coordinated withdrawals or market manipulation.
Algorithmic Instability: The UST-LUNC system lacked sufficient backing or mechanisms to handle extreme volatility. As UST depegged, users burned it to mint LUNC, flooding the market with new LUNC tokens. This caused LUNC’s supply to skyrocket (eventually reaching trillions of tokens) and its price to plummet from around $80 to fractions of a cent, creating a "death spiral." The system couldn’t absorb the pressure because it depended on constant demand for both UST and LUNC, which evaporated.
Mass Panic and Loss of Confidence: The initial depegging sparked panic among investors. Major players, including exchanges and liquidity providers, began dumping UST and LUNC. For example, over $2 billion in UST was unstaked from the Anchor Protocol (a lending platform offering 20% APY on UST deposits) in early May, exacerbating the sell-off. Social media and news amplified the fear, leading to a bank-run-like scenario where trust in the Terra ecosystem collapsed.
Potential Market Manipulation: While not definitively proven, there’s speculation of orchestrated attacks. Some reports and lawsuits (e.g., from the SEC against Terraform Labs) suggest large entities or traders might have intentionally destabilized UST by dumping massive amounts on exchanges like Binance and Curve Finance. Posts on X and later analyses have pointed fingers at figures like Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX/Alameda, though concrete evidence remains debated.
Overreliance on Anchor Protocol: Much of UST’s demand came from Anchor’s unsustainable 20% yield, which attracted billions in deposits. When doubts about UST’s stability grew, withdrawals from Anchor accelerated, draining liquidity and exposing the system’s fragility. By May 9, UST was trading at $0.91, and the spiral intensified.
Failed Recovery Efforts: Terraform Labs, led by Do Kwon, attempted to stabilize UST by deploying reserves (e.g., Bitcoin from the Luna Foundation Guard), but these efforts were too little, too late. By May 12
👎7👍4🥰2👨💻1
🚀 🚀 🔥🔥 🚀🚀 🔥
🚀 🚀 🔥 🔥 🚀 🚀 🔥
🚀🚀 🚀 🔥 🔥 🚀 🚀 🔥
🚀 🚀 🔥 🔥 🚀 🚀 🔥
🚀 🚀 🔥 🔥 🚀🚀 🔥🔥
🚀 🚀 🔥 🔥 🚀 🚀 🔥
🚀🚀 🚀 🔥 🔥 🚀 🚀 🔥
🚀 🚀 🔥 🔥 🚀 🚀 🔥
🚀 🚀 🔥 🔥 🚀🚀 🔥🔥
🔥30👎5🤣4👍2