LUNC Forex Genesis + EUTC Repeg

Proposals
22

Need to move away from just burning money. We have tried that for 3 years and proved it does nothing to increase the price. It’s time to try something new

2 Likes
24

It’s very simple to understand. We don’t want anything to do with a proposal that seems very good but, when it comes to the permanent vault, reeks of a scam. We’re not going to support anyone who continues the 7T scam that brought the DKWON fraud to Terra Classic. Therefore, there’s only one option: buy back Lunc with the profits from Lunc Forex and send it to the Burn wallet, and you’ll get a yes. Continue with the scam, and it’s a no from [unclear - possibly “no”].

1 Like
25

The best decision for Lunc is send the repurchased Lunc to the burn wallet. A “permanent” vault always has the danger of ceasing to be “permanent” at some point in the future. To burn is complitly permanent.

2 Likes
26

But what has been burned in recent years? Nothing has been burned and the trading volume has been small. When all the wallets are burned by court order, we’ll see if the price notices it or not. Therefore, fewer vaults and more burns.

1 Like
27

Non-algorithmic stablecoins have very low fees. Algorithmic stablecoins have higher fees but offer a return and have a use. This version offers nothing, so I don’t know who would be interested in buying something like this. Who will provide liquidity to the DEXs? Don’t purchases on the DEX pay the minting fee? Why should there be buying and selling volume? This is only good for arbitrageurs, and only if there were volume and very high price discrepancies, since the fees and slippage won’t allow for large trades. Furthermore, there should be an estimate of the volume needed to make the expense profitable. In any case, and for the price readjustment not to have much slippage, you need a very large liquidity level. Again, I only see arbitrage bots making money and the DEX markets declining. I don’t think it will generate large losses, but neither will it generate profit. Furthermore, anyone wanting to generate returns with their stablecoin will soon have access to the Juris Protocol, and I fear it will be the most popular option for users, both lenders and borrowers. I also don’t see this coin being readily available for lending or borrowing due to its extremely high fees.

1 Like
28

Because it isnt about 1 it is about all of them that makes the strenght. We propose 3 pools to make sure those arbitrage gains are there and when pools move at a higher % than 1.5% than people will mint the stablecoins. We are asking for no money for this or liquidity, this will come in a subsequent proposal so you are voting for the collateralized stablecoin module and EUTC repeg not the liquidity going to pools.

29

The Vault simply means “Untouchable collateral” it is community pool funds not owned by anyone else than LUNC. But a collateralized stablecoin needs to be backed 1/1 at all times in this case we also add a 1.5% buffer of secondary collateral to readjust in case of extraordinary market fluctuations. The collateral just like the liquidity we will be investing into the pools, all belong to the community and will be held in a multisig or Dao treasury just like we proceeded with the USDC liquidity injection

30

In disagree collateral in a collateralized model is crucial and the ONLY thing keeping us from a death spiral 2.0. Collateral is also Marketcap added to LUNC ecosystem. Thus every EUTC Mint creates not 1€ but 2€ to the marketcap let me explain and this is why collateralized stablecoins are awesome. user pays 1€ (in EURC or USDC) to mint EUTC. 1€ goes to the vault that is owned by community and a 1€ value EUTC stablecoin is minted. Weve added 2€ to marketcap. We never mint lunc again only one way Mint/burn mechanisms between each respective stablecoins. :folded_hands:

1 Like
31

Vault is community owned and there to back each stablecoin 1/1 + extra 1.5% secondary collateral. All it means is we dont touch it because it backs a coins. All the liquidity is also community owned just like we did when we did liquidity injection for USDC onchain

1 Like
32

I can’t see how this will generate revenue and profits. All I can see is trading bots arbitraging.

Non-algorithmic stablecoins have low yields. Have you asked the main question? Why would anyone use this stablecoin instead of USDT (for example)?

33

Let’s apply the burn math directly to a 6.5 TRILLION LUNC supply, clean and concrete.

:fire: LUNC Burn Math @ 6.5 Trillion Supply

Base formula (always true)

Market cap = price × supply

Burns only change supply.
What happens to price depends on market cap (demand).

:abacus: Starting point (example)

Assume:

  • Supply: 6.5 trillion

  • Price: $0.0001

  • Market cap:

6,500,000,000,000 × 0.0001 = $650 million

:one: Burn 10% (650 billion burned)

  • New supply: 5.85 trillion

  • If market cap stays $650M:

$650M ÷ 5.85T = $0.000111

:chart_increasing: Price increase: ~11%

:right_arrow: Barely noticeable

:two: Burn 50% (3.25 trillion burned)

  • New supply: 3.25 trillion

  • Market cap unchanged at $650M:

$650M ÷ 3.25T = $0.00020

:chart_increasing: Price doubles

:right_arrow: Requires years at current burn pace

:three: Burn to 1 trillion supply (BIG burn)

  • Burned: 5.5 trillion

  • Supply: 1 trillion

$650M ÷ 1T = $0.00065

:chart_increasing: 6.5× price increase

Still nowhere near $0.01

:four: What does $0.01 actually require?

Scenario A — NO burn

6.5T × $0.01 = $65 BILLION market cap

:prohibited: Unrealistic without massive adoption

Scenario B — Burn to 1T supply

1T × $0.01 = $10 BILLION market cap

:warning: Still top-15 crypto territory

Scenario C — Burn to 500B supply

500B × $0.01 = $5 BILLION market cap

:yellow_circle: Difficult but not impossible in a strong bull market

:hourglass_not_done: Time reality (important)

Current burn pace (order of magnitude):

  • Tens of billions per year

To burn:

  • 1 trillion → ~10–15 years

  • 5 trillion → decades

Unless:

  • Major exchanges burn fees

  • On-chain usage explodes

  • Protocol-level burn changes

:balance_scale: Does burning “destroy” market cap?

NO.
Market cap only shrinks if people sell.

Burns:

  • Reduce supply

  • Increase scarcity

  • Magnify demand changes

Think of burns as a lever, not the engine.

:bullseye: Final straight answer

With 6.5T supply:

  • Small burns = psychological only

  • Large burns = price meaningful

  • $0.01 requires both:

    • Trillions burned AND

    • Multi-billion dollar demand

2 Likes
34

Love the idea. LFG!!!

35

any step can help to revive the project is welcomed

36

Excellent :+1::+1: :+1: :+1: :+1: :+1: :+1: :+1: :+1: :+1:

37

Just a small note; arbitrage bots are not necessarily a bad thing, they generate volume which would be good for the forex