#MM3 TerraClassic Revival Plan
We Are Real Defi ! #USTC_ismoreforall
2 Likes
Lets build, the community deserves it
2 Likes
Interesting idea and I like the focus on turning real usage into burns.
One thing that might make this more viable is starting spot-only for the MVP, keeping burns flexible between USTC and LUNC, and having a clear governance pause switch if market conditions get stressed.
That sequencing could lower risk and make it easier for the community to get comfortable early.
Three lightweight additions make this far more credible:
-
Start spot-only, defer perps
-
Say: “MVP launches as spot-only; perps considered later by governance.”
-
This immediately:
-
Cuts regulatory risk
-
Reduces audit complexity
-
Makes funding and timelines believable
-
-
-
Dual-burn flexibility (not USTC-only)
-
Add a simple line:
- “Governance can rebalance burns between USTC and LUNC as conditions change.”
-
Avoids the “all eggs in USTC” fragility.
-
-
Explicit safety pause
-
One sentence:
- “All burn and incentive logic includes a governance-controlled pause if volatility or liquidity stress appears.”
-
Just some Thought.
-
2 Likes
Thank you for your input.
-
The idea to start with “Spot only” have been thought but, It wouldn’t bring much traders to the DEX. There are already to many DEX that provide spot buys. Perps have been thought because of trading and creating volume. Dual-burn flexibility (not USTC-only)
-
Because this DEX is owned by the community any additional change have to go through Governance, And that means the community decides the parameters. It only needs a governance proposal.
-
About your: explicit safety pause.
Can be added but we still need a governance proposal to pass. So a safety pause button can only be used after 7 days, i am Not sure how that helps the safety explicit.
-
Thanks for explaining. I get why perps are attractive for volume, and governance control is important. My main point is about sequencing and explicit limits — even a delayed pause mechanism helps frame risk and expectations early, which usually makes community buy-in easier.
1 Like
Thank you for sharing this proposal, it’s clear a lot of thought has gone into revitalizing the Terra Classic ecosystem through a community-owned DEX. While the intent to drive deflationary burns and foster growth is commendable, after careful review, I must recommend against proceeding with it. Here’s a concise overview of key concerns that, in my view, make it untenable:
-
Market Fragmentation Risks: Introducing another DEX could dilute liquidity across existing platforms, potentially stifling overall ecosystem development rather than enhancing it. With Terra Classic already hosting multiple exchanges, this might inadvertently discourage new builders without offering sufficient differentiation.
-
Governance and Transparency Gaps: The “community-owned” model sounds appealing, but lacks detailed mechanisms for initial control, dispute resolution, or preventing centralization. Given Terra Classic’s history of governance challenges, this ambiguity could lead to unintended capture or inefficiencies.
-
High Execution Risks and Overoptimism: The project’s complexity, forking protocols, multi-chain bridges, and intricate incentives carries significant technical and security hurdles, with no guaranteed volume or success. Claims of 100-1000x burns feel overly optimistic, echoing past hype that hasn’t panned out, and could expose the community to further losses.
-
Funding and Resource Concerns: Requesting $50k–$100k from a depleting Community Pool without a prototype, named team, or audits invites potential misuse or failure. In a resource-constrained environment, this could accelerate pool drain without delivering value.
-
Broader Ecosystem Mismatch: Terra Classic faces deeper issues like depegs, low developer interest, and unified tooling needs. Focusing on burns and incentives here might overlook these fundamentals, risking another cycle of disappointment.
In light of these points, I believe pursuing this proposal would not serve the community’s long-term interests. Ultimately, this is too big of a risk for an already fragile ecosystem. Let’s avoid it and channel energy into proven, lower-risk initiatives that build on existing strengths not on their weakness.
2 Likes
Thank you for your thoughtful review—it’s clear you’ve put careful consideration into the risks facing Terra Classic. I appreciate the caution, especially given our shared history of painful lessons.
However, I respectfully disagree with the recommendation against this proposal, as it addresses core structural issues in the ecosystem in a way that existing solutions do not. Let me address your points directly and explain why a truly community-owned DEX is not just viable but essential for long-term revival.
On “Another DEX” and Market Fragmentation
Your concern about diluting liquidity by introducing “another DEX” is valid in theory, but it doesn’t apply here because there is currently no community-owned DEX on Terra Classic.
Existing platforms like Terraswap (legacy protocol), Terraport (developed by TerraCVita with its own $TERRA governance token), Garuda-DeFi, and the Astroport Classic deployment are all either legacy infrastructure or privately/team-initiated projects.
Their fees and governance do not directly accrue to the chain’s community pool or LUNC holders as a whole—they benefit specific token holders or teams.
This proposal is for the first fully community-governed DEX, where:
All trading fees are directed to on-chain burns, community pool replenishment, and oracle rewards via governance parameters.
No private token pre-mine, team profits, or external capture—100% ownership and revenue flow to the protocol and LUNC/USTC holders.
Far from fragmenting liquidity, this creates a neutral, chain-aligned hub that can aggregate and incentivize volume toward deflationary mechanics.
Private DEXs compete for their own tokens; a community-owned one aligns incentives with the chain itself, potentially consolidating fragmented liquidity over time rather than splitting it further. In a low-volume ecosystem (current DEX volume is minimal, often under $10K daily), adding a burn-focused, governance-controlled option attracts new builders and traders who want direct exposure to LUNC deflation without intermediary tokens.
Governance and Transparency
I share your wariness of centralization risks—Terra Classic’s past makes this non-negotiable. That’s why the proposal emphasizes explicit mechanisms we’re refining in this discussion phase:
Dispute resolution through standard governance votes (no off-chain veto powers).
No named team profits; development funded only for delivery, with contracts and audits open-sourced.
All parameters (fee splits, incentives, bridges) set via param-change proposals post-launch.
This isn’t vague—it’s building on proven Cosmos governance while learning from past failures. Ambiguity is being addressed now in open forum to ensure no capture risks.
Execution Risks and “Overoptimism”
Forking established protocols (e.g., proven AMM models) with multi-chain bridges is complex, but not unprecedented—many Cosmos chains have done this successfully with audits. We’re not reinventing the wheel; we’re adapting battle-tested code with security-first priorities.
On volume and burns: Realistic projections aren’t “100-1000x hype” but tied to incentives. Directing 100% of fees to burns/pools creates the strongest on-chain deflationary engine possible. Even modest volume growth (driven by multi-chain access and perp features) compounds burns far beyond current off-chain reliance (e.g., Binance). Past hype failed because it was centralized; this is decentralized and aligned.
Funding and Resources
Funding is reasonable for audited development in today’s market, especially with no prototype required upfront (we can milestone it). In a depleting pool, yes—risk matters—but this is revenue-generating infrastructure, not a grant sink. Successful DEXs refill pools exponentially (fees > initial seed). We’re prioritizing lower-risk phases first (spot trading on Classic, then bridges/perps) to minimize exposure.
Broader Ecosystem Fit
Terra Classic’s core issues—low dev interest, depegs, fragmented tooling—are exactly why we need chain-aligned utility. Private projects help, but they don’t solve incentive misalignment: fees leak to external tokens. A community-owned DEX directly funds burns, stabilizes USTC pairs, and attracts builders with governance rewards. It’s not ignoring fundamentals—it’s building on them by creating sustainable on-chain revenue to address pool drain and dev exodus.
This isn’t “too big a risk”—it’s a calculated step toward self-sufficiency in a fragile ecosystem. Private DEXs build on weaknesses (external capture); this builds on strengths (community governance and burn tax legacy).
Let’s refine this together to mitigate risks further—strong consensus first, no rushed spend. Channeling energy into aligned, revenue-generating infrastructure is precisely what serves long-term interests.
What specific governance mechanisms or milestones would address your concerns most effectively? Open to all feedback.
I hear you let’s go back one step. Look, this points sound polished, but they’re dancing around the real math, right now, our chain burns dust. Fees from current DEXs? Negligible. So promising “exponential refills” off volume we don’t even have is straight fantasy.
Second, this governance thing? Saying ‘all via proposals post-launch’ means whoever loads liquidity first wins. That’s not decentralization; that’s whoever clicks fastest. No anti-frontrun, no pre-commit, no bootstraps… just hope.
Third, forking GMX? Cute. But Cosmos bridges still get hacked yearly, audits cost triple the seed money, and perps on USTC collateral? One 10% dip and parking turns into prison. We’re not Binance we’re the chain that lost a trillion in stablecoin faith.
And yeah, $50k might buy code. Doesn’t buy trust. Without a working MVP locked behind escrow, this is another IOU signed in LUNC tears. I would suggest to show us code that survives a week on testnet with real traders. Until then, no Community Pool touch. We’ve been played enough.
Look, I appreciate the pushback
—healthy skepticism is what keeps communities like ours from repeating past mistakes. But let’s dissect this point by point with some real context on the Classic DEX proposal.
I’ve been grinding on this to make it bulletproof for Terra Classic’s revival. We’re not chasing rainbows; we’re building a deflationary engine grounded in proven mechanics.
First off, the “burning dust” jab and negligible fees: Yeah, current DEX fees on Terra Classic are slim—let’s call it what it is, under $1k daily on a good day from scattered pools. But this isn’t promising burns out of thin air. The flywheel starts with targeted incentives to bootstrap volume: base cashback multipliers up to 2x for USTC/LUNC collateral, plus parking modes that lock USTC (flexible or 21-day) for extra boosts up to 5x total. These aren’t inflationary handouts—they’re funded solely from the 10% boost pool of actual fees generated. It’s modeled after GMX’s growth from zero TVL in 2021 to $500M+ by 2023, where rebates and rewards pulled in liquidity during low-volume phases. Capturing even 1% of the $100B+ perp market (which perps dominate over spots) could mean 100x current burns. Exponential? Sure, but it’s math-backed: volume compounds scarcity via 70% auto-USTC burns, driving price action that refills the loop. We’ve seen it work on Arbitrum and Avalanche—why not here with our native assets?
Second, governance and “fastest clicker wins”: This isn’t some rug-pull launch where whales front-run liquidity. The DEX is 100% community-owned from day one—no team pre-mines, no insider allocations. Post-launch governance via Agora proposals means the community votes on everything: fee tweaks, new features, even liquidity incentives. To address frontrunning concerns head-on, we can bake in pre-launch commitments like a fair-launch bootstrap phase (e.g., timed LP deposits with anti-bot cooldowns) or integrate anti-MEV tools from Cosmos SDK upgrades. It’s not “just hope”—it’s deliberate decentralization. Compare to Uniswap v3 launches: early LPs got rewarded, but governance ensured long-term fairness without chaos. If we need to add pre-commit scripts or escrow for initial pools, let’s refine that in the discussion phase before any spend proposal hits the chain.
Third, forking GMX, it’s “cute,” but it’s smart. GMX has handled $150B+ in volume with minimal incidents since 2021, proving the perp model scales. Cosmos bridges? Hacks were a 2022-2023, but post-IBC v7 and Replicated Security in 2024-2025, incidents dropped 80%—no major ones reported in the last 18 months per chain audits. We’ll bridge selectively to 2-3 stable EVM/Cosmos chains (e.g., Osmosis, not high-risk ones) —quotes from vetted Cosmos devs (published publicly for scrutiny) show audits at 20-30% of total cost.
On USTC collateral risks: A 10% dip? Parking mode is optional, with flexible withdrawals to mitigate volatility. Perps will have built-in liquidation buffers (like GMX’s 1% fee on over-leveraged positions), and restricting collateral to LUNC/USTC forces skin in the game for our ecosystem. We’re not pretending to be Binance; we’re rebuilding trust by tying everything to verifiable on-chain burns and community control. The “trillion lost” scar? This DEX turns that pain into utility—USTC burns restore faith through deflation, not fiat peg promises.
Finally, $50k buying code vs. trust: Spot on, code alone isn’t enough. That’s why the proposal mandates vetting 3-5 dev teams publicly (names, refs, timelines)—no Community Pool touch. This isn’t an IOU; it’s a transparent build process we’ve seen succeed in projects like Osmosis DEX forks. We’ve been played before, absolutely—Do Kwon era PTSD is real. But this is different: no VCs, no hype, just community-vetted execution to prove viability.
Bottom line: This isn’t fantasy; it’s a calculated shot at real utility in 2026. If these counters don’t land, hit me with specifics—let’s iterate on Agora to make it ironclad. Terra Classic rises together.
Nicolas Boulay recently published a proposal to transfer Astroport adminship to the community (Proposal 364), arguing that it is faster, cost-free, and already battle-tested.
As someone who is proposing a fresh build ($50k-$100k cost / 6-12 months timeline), how do you view the Astroport alternative?
-
Do you think the custom burn mechanics and collateral rules you’ve designed could be integrated into Astroport’s existing infrastructure?
-
Or do you believe a brand-new build is absolutely necessary to achieve the specific ‘Flywheel’ effect you are aiming for?
I’m trying to understand if we should ‘Build’ or ‘Reclaim’ to get the best results for $LUNC and $USTC. Looking forward to your thoughts!
Thank you for the detailed response. However, while your counters are well articulated, they don’t fully alleviate the core risks I’ve highlighted. Let’s break this down point by point, grounded in current realities, to explain why this proposal remains too speculative and hazardous for an ecosystem still recovering from its scars.
On Low Fees and the “Flywheel” Incentives: You’re right that current DEX volumes on Terra Classic are dismal recent data shows LUNC’s 24-hour trading volume hovering around $21,000 to 22,000 as of early January 2026, but actual on-chain DEX fees are a fraction of that, often under $1,000 daily as you noted and I would say in low 100’s to be exact. Modeling after GMX’s 2021-2023 growth is appealing, but context matters, GMX launched during a bull market with broad liquidity and external hype, scaling to $500M TVL amid crypto’s peak. Terra Classic, post-2022 collapse, lacks that momentum our volumes are stagnant, and incentives like 2-5x cashbacks (even if fee-funded) risk creating short-term pumps without sustainable adoption. Capturing 1% of the $100B perp market sounds math backed, but it’s optimistic projection in a chain with fractured trust and competition from established players like Hyperliquid or Aster. Without proven bootstrapping (e.g., a testnet demo showing volume growth), this could fizzle, burning CP funds on unrealized “exponential refills.”
On Governance and Frontrunning: Appreciate the nod to anti-MEV tools and fair-launch phases are smart refinements. But proposing them as “bake-ins” during discussion means the core plan isn’t finalized yet. Post-launch votes are standard Cosmos fare, but in practice, initial liquidity providers (often whales) can dominate early dynamics before votes kick in, especially without pre-coded anti-frontrun mechanisms like escrow or timed deposits enforced from launch. Uniswap v3 succeeded with massive backing and liquidity mining, here, relying on community votes to retroactively fix issues invites centralization risks, as seen in Terra’s past governance bottlenecks. Until these are hardcoded in a vetted prototype, it’s still more hope than hardened decentralization.
On Forking GMX and Bridge Security: GMX’s $150B volume is impressive, but forking it for Cosmos introduces unique vulnerabilities. Your claim of an 80% drop in incidents post-IBC v7/Replicated Security doesn’t hold, 2025 was a record year for crypto hacks, with over $2.72 billion stolen overall, including $3.9 billion from smart contracts and $3 billion from 119 incidents by mid-year, many involving cross-chain bridges. Specific bridge exploits like Force Bridge, Shibarium, and Cetus in 2025 highlight ongoing risks, even on “stable” chains like Osmosis. Audits at 20-30% of cost are realistic, but they don’t prevent all hacks, quotes from devs are a start, yet without a public testnet enduring real stress (e.g., simulated attacks), this could expose users to losses in a chain already synonymous with depegs.
On USTC Collateral Risks: Optional parking and liquidation buffers are mitigations, but restricting collateral to volatile LUNC/USTC (both down 99% from ATH) amplifies dangers. A 10% dip isn’t hypothetical USTC’s history shows rapid depegs, and perps with 1% fees won’t save over-leveraged positions in low-liquidity pools. Tying “skin in the game” to native assets might align incentives, but it also concentrates risk that one exploit or market swing could cascade, eroding the “trust restoration” you aim for. This isn’t rebuilding faith, it’s betting the ecosystem on assets that lost a trillion in value precisely because of similar over-optimism.
On Funding and Transparency: Mandating public vetting of 3-5 teams is a positive step, and no personal funds is commendable. But $50k-$100k from a depleting CP without a working MVP or escrow-tied milestones it still feels like an IOU. Osmosis forks worked with established liquidity but here, we’re funding unproven code in a low-interest environment. Community sentiment on X reflects buzz but also wariness as posts highlight “relentless attacks” and threats, suggesting drama that could derail execution, while calls for DYOR underscore the lack of built-in safeguards.
In summary, these refinements are thoughtful, but they hinge on future iterations rather than present proof. Terra Classic can’t afford to gamble its remaining resources on projections and promises we’ve been down that road. This is too big a risk for our fragile ecosystem so let’s pivot to lower-stakes initiatives with immediate, verifiable impact. If you’d like to collaborate on alternatives, I’m all ears but if you continue to push this knowing in detail the highlighted risks, I believe this would be the last reply to this proposal.
Did He tell you how He is planning to “take ownership”?
Necesitamos este proyecto en cuanto antes. Votaremos SI todo lo que este relacionado con disminuir el supply lo apoyamos
1 Like
Merci, we will propose
With 100% of the transaction fees being burned, how can the LP funds of the DEX be addressed? The sustainability in this regard is worthy of careful evaluation.
We can add a portion of the fees to LP
Community Announcement: Vote to Choose the Developer for Classic DEX
Dear Luna Classic Community,As the idea founder of Classic DEX, I want to give everyone a real say in who we partner with before submitting our final proposal for an on-chain vote.
This is community money — funds we’ve all worked hard to build.
Everyone should take full responsibility and do their own research (DYOR) before voting.
That’s the first and most important step!
Sharing direct links or document files can be risky (potential viruses/malware), and Agora doesn’t make it easy to upload full documentation safely.
That’s why I’ve created a dedicated Telegram announcement channel only for sharing price quotes and company information and documents — to protect everyone.
PLEASE, BEFORE VOTING:
Go to the Telegram channel and carefully read the full price offers and proposals!
Every voter must do their own research.
Contact the companies if needed, review their past work, and verify everything.
The quotes received:
-
EvaCodes: $63,000
-
Webisoft: $120,000
-
Boosty Labs: $235,000
I’m opening a 72-hour community vote now (starting today, January 9, 2026).As the person who communicated directly with these companies and reviewed their responses,
I’m personally leaning toward Boosty Labs due to their deep experience, team size, staff quality, and strong understanding of our specific wishes for Classic DEX.
But this is your decision — everyone is completely free to vote for whoever they believe is best after their own research.
Telegram channel for documents: https://t.me/+CJ-tO-mZiMQyNzdkThank you for your dedication to Luna Classic!
Votes here 
- Pay EvaCodes $63,000
- Pay Webisoft $120,000
- Pay Boostylabs $235,000
0
voters
3 Likes