Flexible Parking: Withdraw anytime (optional ~24-hour cooldown to deter bots) → +2.25× extra (total 4.25× multiplier).
21-Day Parking: Locked for 21 days → +3× extra (total 5× multiplier).
Referral Bonus: Base 10% of referred trader’s fees; +0.75× extra if the referred trader uses 21-day USTC Parking.
All extra multipliers are sustainably funded solely from the 10% boost pool – no inflation or dilution.
This design creates a massive flywheel: Incentives drive traders to deposit/park USTC & use LUNC → High volume → Huge fees → 80% auto-burns USTC → Increased scarcity → Price appreciation → Even more volume.
Potential impact: Capturing even a small share of perp DEX markets could lead to burns 100-1000x larger than current levels.
Next Steps – Pure Discussion Phase (No Voting or Spending Yet):
This thread is for open feedback and refinement only. Let’s collaborate before any formal proposal.
Refine the mechanics together:
Should we adjust fee split (e.g., more balanced burns for LUNC vs USTC)?
Tweak multipliers or Parking options?
Add/remove features for MVP?
Share your ideas/suggestions!
Development & Cost Estimate:
Target: Fork proven protocols (e.g., GMX for perps, Uniswap-style for spot) with custom incentives, collateral rules, and on-chain auto-buyback/burn.
Realistic cost for MVP : $50,000–$100,000 USD.
Timeline: 8-12 weeks with an experienced team.
Builder Selection Process (if we move forward):
I will reach out to 3-5 reputable Cosmos SDK-experienced development companies/teams.
Publish all quotes publicly here, including: company name, contact details, exact price, timeline, milestones, and references.
Full community vetting: Everyone is encouraged to contact the companies directly, check track records, audit history, and report any concerns or red flags here for group investigation.
Only the most transparent and trusted option advances.
Funding Considerations:
Primary: Community pool spend (if sufficient balance and community support).
Post-launch: DEX fees can cover ongoing costs and potentially reimburse/replenish the pool over time.
No on-chain spend proposal until strong consensus here – we discuss/refine first.
This is 100% community-driven: No team profits, no pre-mines, full governance control via Agora after launch.
What are your thoughts? Excited? Suggestions for improvements? Concerns about mechanics, costs, or risks? Let’s make this the best possible version together.
If you only burn USTC I will vote no, we are here for Lunc, you don’t know if its possible reopen MM, so at least burn both, you have a great idea but you want divide de community if you dont burn Lunc too.
The question is why not? You know community want it, so…why don’t change your idea and make all happy.
I dont understand why do you want fight with this great idea and have a lot of “no” when you can get a big yes if you burn 50% - 50%.
I get the concern about dividing us—unity is key. But right now, burning ONLY USTC is the fastest path forward, and here’s why:
Lowering USTC supply aggressively → faster path to $1 peg.
Once USTC hits ~$1, we can safely reopen the Market Module.
When MM is back? Massive, automatic LUNC burns kick in every time USTC is minted (just like pre-crash).
Burning 50/50 now slows USTC repeg, delays MM reopening, and postpones those huge LUNC burns we all want.
It’s not USTC vs LUNC—it’s sequencing: fix the stablecoin first → unlock the burn engine for LUNC second.
Prioritizing USTC isn’t fighting the community. It’s accelerating recovery for BOTH tokens.
Let’s get to $1 and flip the switch on real LUNC burns.
The MM doesn’t seem to be reopening; it will be replaced by MM2 to achieve parity with stablecoins collateralized with USDC, etc., and not algorithmically as you’re suggesting in this forum. LUNC Forex was approved, and they will all be re-pegged one after another with USCD, not algorithmically. That’s why I don’t understand your obsession with the MM, which will never be reopened. The logical thing to do is to burn LUNC and USTC equally and not confuse the community with something you know will never be reopened algorithmically just to burn LUNC. Therefore, for me, it’s a no only if you want to burn USTC when you yourself know that the MM will never be reopened algorithmically and when you know that the new MM2 will be opened and the re-peg will only be collateralized with USTD. It will be a yes if you do what the whole community wants, which is to burn LUNC and ustc in equal parts at 50%
I get the goal of boosting CP revenue and on-chain volume, but a full DEX isn’t simple. It’s expensive, needs constant security, liquidity, governance, risks failure or wasted funds. Adding another DEX splits liquidity and directly competes with teams already building on Terra Classic. Healthy ecosystems support builders, not compete with them. More tokens doesn’t automatically bring more volume, and “community ownership” isn’t clear. who decides, how, and who’s responsible?
Given the low CP and complexity, this feels like a risky move with too many uncertainties.
“Adding another DEX” —This isn’t any other dex because the other onces aren’t community owned nor they have no vision for perpetual tradinf nor have they pisted coins outside lunc community.
“splits liquidity” —why have we provided 3 dex with liquidity,then if it’s splits liquidity?
“More tokens” —where do you get more tokens? We are not minting new coins..
“community ownership” isn’t clear. —with this logical we shouldn’t manage the ecosystem also then.
If you think this hopium then you are wrong we are already in talk with several development companies, with there experience it’s not a big deal to build.
If you are scared about the CP being/getting empty then Classic DEX is the way we need to go because it’s the only utility who will fill the CP.
I’ve analyzed the ‘Classic DEX’ proposal for 2026, and it stands out as one of the most utility-driven initiatives we’ve seen. Transitioning from a reliance on CEX burns to a self-sustaining, community-owned DeFi engine is exactly the evolution this ecosystem needs.
Here are my thoughts and a few points for refinement:
The Collateral Flywheel
Restricting collateral exclusively to LUNC and USTC is a masterstroke. It forces utility and locks up circulating supply, effectively reducing sell pressure. This turns the DEX into a ‘black hole’ for supply, which is the most sustainable way to drive price appreciation.
The Burn Engine (%70 Fee Allocation)
A 70% buyback-and-burn for USTC is aggressive and highly competitive. If this DEX captures even 1-2% of the daily Perp volume in the Cosmos/EVM space, the on-chain burn rates would dwarf current records.
Areas for Refinement & Discussion:
Security & Audit Budget: While the $50k–$100k MVP cost is lean, we must ensure Top-Tier Audits (e.g., CertiK, Halborn, or PeckShield) are factored in. A Perp DEX handles high-risk liquidations; security must be our #1 priority to win user trust. Perhaps we should consider a dedicated ‘Security Fund’ from the initial community spend.
Burn Balancing: While the focus on USTC is vital for repeg efforts, should we consider a small percentage (e.g., 5-10%) of the fee buyback to be dedicated to LUNC burns or Staking Rewards? This would ensure long-term LUNC stakers feel the direct benefit of the DEX’s success.
Liquidity Depth: To attract high-volume traders, we need deep liquidity. We should discuss adding Liquidity Provider (LP) Incentives for those who bridge assets from other chains, perhaps rewarded in a ‘boosted’ version of the 10% multiplier pool.
Transparency & Execution
I fully support the public vetting process for developers. Keeping the quotes, milestones, and references open for community inspection is the only way to ensure the $LUNC Community Pool is spent wisely.
Overall: This is a high-impact proposal. Let’s focus on the technical feasibility of the multi-chain bridges and the security of the vault contracts. If we get the security right, the volume will follow.
Thank you for the insightful feedback. I completely agree with the ‘USTC-First’ catalyst logic. A restored USTC is the ultimate engine for LUNC value; once the stablecoin regains its peg, the transactional volume and fee-based burns will scale exponentially.
Regarding the implementation:
Gradual Scaling: Starting with low liquidity to test the engine’s stability is a very prudent approach. It minimizes risk while proving the concept.
The Proposal Quality: I take the ‘just a proposal’ part seriously. However, to ensure community approval, we must present a bulletproof document that includes a clear technical roadmap, security audit plans, and transparent developer milestones.
LUNC Synergy: While we focus on USTC to ignite the engine, we should ensure the proposal clearly shows LUNC holders how this ‘USTC repeg’ directly accelerates their own burn rates to gain 100% community consensus.
I am ready to help refine this into a formal draft. Let’s ensure this isn’t just ‘another proposal,’ but THE proposal that changes the trajectory.
I like it, but I wish you divide 20% of 70% to LUNC and the 50% on USTC there your target of speed to USTC will be reduced small but we have to go on one line because we are LUNC & USTC community
