LUNC Terra classic whitelisting on Liquidity Alliance Erisprotocol

Proposals
1

The Terra Classic community has shown unbelievable resilience. But what if I told you there’s a way to turn that resilience into real, compounding growth? Here’s how leveraging the Terra Liquidity Alliance (TLA) and Eris Protocol can create a powerful, self-sustaining engine for LUNC.

First, we need to frame this right. Getting LUNC whitelisted on the TLA isn’t just a nice-to-have—it’s a strategic imperative. Think of the TLA as a high-yield investment fund that’s currently closed to us. Whitelisting opens the door. It signals to the entire Terra ecosystem that LUNC is a serious, productive asset, not just a token from the past. That legitimacy alone attracts a many more people and investor to LUNC.

Now, here’s the core of the strategy: low-cost leverage for high-yield farming.

The plan is simple but powerful loop. We use our existing LUNC holdings as rock-solid collateral to borrow stablecoins from another DeFi ecosystem at a rate below 10%. Then, we deploy that borrowed capital into a TLA vault via Eris Protocol to earn yields that can be 100% APR or more. The spread between our borrowing cost and our earning yield is pure profit, which we then use to buy more LUNC, locking it up and creating constant buy pressure.

Let’s break it down step-by-step.

Step 1: The Collateral Play
Our foundation is the LUNC we already hold and believe in. We don’t sell it. Instead, we use it as collateral on a lending platform outside the Terra ecosystem somewhere like Aave on Polygon or Ethereum, or even a cross-chain lending protocol. The goal is to find the most efficient, low-cost loan. With major assets, borrowing stablecoins under 10% is very doable. This is key because it keeps our risk manageable. We’re not taking out a crazy 30% loan we’re getting responsible leverage.

Step 2: The Cross-Chain Bridge
Once we have those borrowed stablecoins (say, USDC), we bridge them over to Terra. This is where the magic starts. We’re bringing fresh, capital into the ecosystem—capital that wasn’t here before. That’s a huge win for Terra’s overall liquidity.

Step 3: The Yield Deployment
Here’s where TLA and Eris come in. We take that USDC and provide it to a TLA liquidity pool through Eris Protocol. Eris amplifies this by converting our single-asset deposit into LP tokens for us, automatically staking them in the highest-yield farms. These TLA vaults are specifically designed to bootstrap deep liquidity for key Terra pairs, and they’re incentivized with massive rewards. That’s how you get to those triple-digit APRs.

Step 4: The Profit Loop & Risk Buffer
The earnings start rolling in a mix of trading fees and incentive tokens. We take a big portion of that yield and immediately swap it for more LUNC. Some of that LUNC can go back to secure our original loan, making it even safer. The rest? It gets funneled into community-driven projects staking to increase security, funding development grants, or fueling the burn. We create a perpetual cycle: borrowed capital → high yield → LUNC buyback/burn/stake.

Whitelisting LUNC on TLA:

  1. It’s a Liquidity Tsunami for Terra, Not a Drain. The TLA wants deep, sticky liquidity. Whitelisting LUNC doesn’t just tap existing funds; it incentivizes the entire LUNC community to become liquidity importers. We become a tunnel, bringing in millions in external capital from other chains to feed TLA pools. That’s a net positive for every project building on Terra.

  2. We’re the Ultimate Stress-Tested Community. No other group understands Terra’s mechanics and possesses our level of dedication. We’re long-term players, not mercenary capital. Giving us a productive outlet like this aligns our massive community energy with Terra’s growth, turning a potential competitor into a powerful ally.

  3. The Arbitrage Opportunity is Real. High TLA yields will naturally attract arbitrageurs. For that to work efficiently, they need a trusted, liquid asset to hedge with. LUNC, with its deep history and market presence, is perfect. Its inclusion would make the entire TLA ecosystem more efficient and robust.

  4. It’s a Mutually Win, Not a Handout. It’s a proposal for a powerful partnership. The TLA gets a massive, active, and now financially incentivized community to provide and defend liquidity. LUNC gets a sustainable utility engine beyond just burning. The value created compounds for both sides.

Look, the numbers speak for themselves. Borrowing at 8% to earn 100% is a 92% net yield strategy. Even after accounting for bridge fees and gas, the margin is enormous. That margin is what fuels the buy pressure, the staking, the burns—everything our community wants.

But it all starts with opening the door. Whitelisting LUNC on the Terra Liquidity Alliance is the spark. It transforms our community from a group defined by the past into the most aggressive capital allocators and liquidity providers for Terra’s future. We have the will. We have the capital. With this tool, we’ll have the strategy.

3

:pushpin: Summary

The idea is theoretically feasible, but only under several conditions that are not currently guaranteed for LUNC. It relies on whitelisting approval, sufficient liquidity, stable low borrowing rates, and high sustainable yields. In practice, this strategy is possible but risky and uncertain, especially long-term.

:magnifying_glass_tilted_left: Feasibility Breakdown

:check_mark: Parts that are plausible

Component Feasibility
Using LUNC as collateral on another chain Possible if lending markets support LUNC (many do not currently).
Borrowing stablecoins <10% APR Realistic on major platforms with blue-chip collateral.
Bridging capital into Terra Technically doable through existing bridges.
Deploying capital into Eris/TLA liquidity vaults Only possible after LUNC is whitelisted.
Yield looping strategy Common in DeFi (looping, leveraged yield farm), used in other ecosystems.

:warning: Where the plan becomes uncertain

  • LUNC is not widely accepted as collateral — unlike ETH, ATOM, SOL, etc.

  • TLA farming yields fluctuating at 100%+ APR is not guaranteed or sustainable long-term.

  • Whitelisting must be approved first — requires governance support.

  • If LUNC price drops, collateral can be liquidated, causing mass sell pressure instead of buy pressure.

  • Looping leverage introduces liquidation & contagion risk like Anchor shaped Terra’s crash.

:police_car_light: Critical Risks

  1. Collateral volatility

    • LUNC is volatile. High volatility + leverage = high liquidation risk.

    • A 20–30% drop in price could trigger forced sell-offs.

  2. Yield APR will naturally fall

    • High APR only exists early while incentives are high.

    • If many join, yield gets diluted quickly.

  3. Recycling borrowed funds into yield farms is leverage

    • Works great in bull markets.

    • Fails quickly in downturns.

  4. Needs massive liquidity infrastructure

    • LUNC must be accepted as collateral & whitelisted.

    • Requires deep liquidity pools to avoid slippage.

  5. Terra’s history creates market hesitation

    • Institutions may be cautious about looping strategies after UST collapse.

Realistic Outcome Expectations

Best case scenario (bull market + whitelist approved):

  • External capital flows in.

  • High APR farms generate returns.

  • LUNC buybacks increase demand.

  • Can create a temporary flywheel of liquidity growth.

Worst case scenario (bear trend or price dip):

  • Collateral value falls → liquidation → sell pressure.

  • APR decreases → yield loop breaks.

  • Borrowing > earnings → negative ROI.

  • Could backfire and push price down instead of up.

This model is momentum-driven, not stable unless the ecosystem keeps expanding.

Final Verdict

The strategy is theoretically sound but highly conditional.
It could work in favorable market conditions if:

  1. LUNC gets whitelisted on TLA.

  2. LUNC becomes accepted collateral somewhere reliable.

  3. APR farming remains significantly > borrowing rate.

  4. Risk management (LTV, hedging) is done carefully.

It is not plug-and-play, and not safe without robust risk controls.

Think of it like this:

High reward potential — but high systemic risk.
Sustainable only if managed like a leveraged hedge fund, not a community hype loop.

Using the current price of LUNC ≈ $0.00003968, here is a tokenomics burn/accumulation simulation based on the same yield-loop strategy.

:pushpin: Inputs Used

Parameter Value
Total Supply 6.5T LUNC
LUNC Price $0.00003968
Capital deployed $5M / $20M / $100M scenarios
Borrow cost 8%
Yield APR 100%
Net APR return ~92%
% of profit used to buy LUNC 70%

:abacus: Yearly Buyback Power at Current Price

[
\text{LUNC per year}=\frac{(Capital \times 92% \times 70%)}{0.00003968}
]

Capital in Loop Yearly Profit Buyback Funds LUNC Bought/Year
$5M $4.6M $3.22M ≈ 81.1B LUNC
$20M $18.4M $12.88M ≈ 324.9B LUNC
$100M $92M $64.4M ≈ 1.62T LUNC

:fire: Supply Reduction at Current Price

[
\text{Supply reduction %} = \frac{\text{Tokens bought}}{6.5T}
]

Capital Tokens Burned/Locked Per Year Supply Reduction/Year
$5M → 81.1B 1.25%/yr
$20M → 324.9B 5.00%/yr
$100M → 1.62T 25%/yr

Multi-Year Projection (If burned & price stays same)

$20M runway example (5% yearly burn)

Year Supply
Start 6.5T
Year 1 6.175T
Year 2 5.866T
Year 3 5.573T

~927B removed in 3 years (~14.2% supply cut).

$100M capital example (aggressive scenario)

Year Supply
Start 6.5T
Year 1 4.88T
Year 2 3.664T
Year 3 2.75T

Supply cut ~58% in 3 years.
:warning: However this level of TVL is highly unlikely, and APR would collapse if billions flood in.

Key Realistic Interpretation

If the strategy manages to attract ~$20M into TLA loops:

  • ~325B LUNC bought yearly at today’s price

  • ~5% supply cut per year

  • Burns won’t instantly moon the token

  • But creates consistent buy pressure + deflation

  • Over time, supply scarcity compounds

Realistically:

Impact Notes
Short term :high_voltage: Mild upward pressure, not explosive
Long term :chart_increasing: Gradual deflation supports price growth
Sustainability :red_question_mark: Only works if APR stays >> borrow cost
Fragility :police_car_light: Leverage liquidation risk remains main failure point

The Catch

As price rises, each $ buys fewer tokens, so:

:fire: Supply burn slows as price increases
:chart_increasing: Price rises mostly from sentiment + volume, not burns alone

Example:

If price doubled → burn amount halves
If price 10x → burn effect becomes minor unless capital grows too

Final Verdict

At current price $0.00003968:

  • Small TVL = slow deflation

  • Moderate TVL ($20M) = meaningful yearly supply reduction

  • Massive TVL ($100M+) = fast deflation but unrealistic & risky

This strategy can help LUNC long-term, but it is not a magic supply eraser, and it depends on:

:check_mark: capital inflow
:check_mark: high yields sustained
:check_mark: risk-managed leverage
:check_mark: TLA whitelisting approval

5

It will aggressively work successfully if LUNC gets whitelisted on liquidity alliance erisprotocol. TLA incentives depends upon LUNA price if LUNA manages to $0.5 or $1 only.

TLA incentives will get aggressive and APR on LUNC will increase from 100% to 1000% easily.

with LUNA $0.5 TLA incentives= $8.5M Yearly

LUNA $1 TLA incentives = $16.9M Yearly.

We can easily remove 2 zeros from LUNC in 6 months. We all need to work to get LUNC whitelisted on Liquidity alliance Erisprotocol.

6

Thank you for initiating this discussion and for your efforts to support our blockchain community. As a community member committed to transparency, I have a straightforward question: How do you plan to meet the high expectations of generating millions in results, given your current average 24-hour trading volume of $47,583 across all deployed chains, a total TVL of $2.02 million USD, and holdings of approximately $5,695 in LUNC?

While I appreciate the emphasis on Luna’s role in our success, I’m curious about the strategy to achieve these goals when Luna’s market cap remains uncomparable to ours and with similar 24-hour volumes (e.g., LUNC at $19,000 and Luna at $22,000). This trend has persisted for years, despite restructuring and committee efforts, and our data suggests ongoing challenges.

I’d value any insights into how we’ll overcome these realities and avoid relying solely on an external chain that continues to face headwinds. Thank you again for this promising initiative. Clarity on this would be greatly appreciated. :handshake:

7

  1. Zero-removal timeline model (realistic tokenomics)

  2. Risk model + failure points

  3. Improved sustainable strategy version (how it could work in real conditions)

Everything will reference current price and supply data from earlier.

1. ZERO-REMOVAL MODEL

Goal: determine realistically how long it would take for LUNC to remove 1 zero and 2 zeros under different burn/yield conditions.

Reference points:

  • Current price: $0.00003968

  • Remove 1 zero target: $0.0003968 (10×)

  • Remove 2 zeros target: $0.003968 (100×)

  • Supply: 6.5T LUNC

  • Burns increase price only if net demand > net sell pressure.

Burn Scenarios

Burn rate Rate per year Years to remove 1 zero* Years to remove 2 zeros*
Slow Burn 1% supply / yr >20 years unrealistic
Moderate Burn 5% / yr (≈20M loop) ~8–12 years 20+ years
Aggressive Burn 10% / yr ~4–6 years 12–18 years
Extreme Burn 25% / yr (≈100M loop) ~2–3 years 5–8+ years

*Assuming constant market conditions, no macro crash, no minting, demand stays positive.

Conclusion on zero removal:

Removing 1 zero is realistic long-term

but only if sustained large burns + demand are present.

Removing 2 zeros in 6 months is mathematically impossible

unless:

  • LUNC enters a full bull mania

  • Trillions burned rapidly (not billions)

  • Billions in liquidity inflow

  • Massive CEX volume + hype + utility

  • Narrative takes off beyond Terra ecosystem

This outcome requires speculation-driven explosive adoption, not just yield farming.

2. RISK MODEL

This yield-loop plan is not inherently bad, but it contains multiple systemic risks.

Main Risks

Risk Description Likelihood Impact
Collateral crash liquidation LUNC price falls → collateral wiped Medium–High High
APR decay High APR drops as TVL grows High High
Leverage death spiral Loan > earnings → forced selling Medium High
Rewards depend on LUNA price External dependency risk High Medium
Bridge/Hack risk Cross-chain capital movement Medium High
Liquidity fragmentation If whales exit → TVL collapse Medium Medium

Failure Points

:warning: If LUNA price drops → incentives shrink → APR falls → loop breaks
:warning: If LUNC volatile drop 30–50% → liquidation event sells LUNC → price tanks
:warning: If APR falls below borrow rate → yield collapses → no buybacks → no burn
:warning: If whales exit after early APR → retail is left holding the bag

This is why projects like Anchor/UST collapsed — they scaled too fast on yield, not utility.

3. IMPROVED SUSTAINABLE STRATEGY

To avoid Anchor-style collapse, the model needs reinforcement:

:small_blue_diamond: Safer leverage rules

  • LTV max 30–40% collateralization

  • Auto-repay using yield to reduce liquidation risk

  • Emergency buffer treasury fund

:small_blue_diamond: Dual-utility yield strategy

Use profits in 3 buckets instead of just burns

Allocation Purpose
40% — Buy & Burn LUNC Reduce supply long-term
30% — Auto-repay collateral/stack safety Risk control
30% — Development/ liquidity incentives Sustain ecosystem

Burning everything is short-term pump, not healthy.

:small_blue_diamond: Utility expansion is more important than burns

Deflation + demand + usage = real value

Potential utilities to make flywheel strong:

  • LUNC staking rewards in protocol revenue

  • On-chain gas fee burns

  • Cross-chain real yield products

  • CEX liquidity depth programs

  • AI/DeFi/NFT integrations

  • Payments, gaming, smart contracts

Burns alone cannot make 100×.
Utility can.

Overall Final Verdict

Claim Truth
TLA listing could boost APR Yes, short-term
1000% APR sustainable No, only temporary
Loop can generate burns Yes, measurable
Two zeros in 6 months :cross_mark: Not mathematically realistic
One zero eventually Possible over years, not months
Real success requires utility and liquidity growth Absolutely

Visual Summary

Good Plan:
Whitelist → liquidity → yield → buy pressure → burns → gradual recovery.

Bad Assumption:
APR stays huge → price 100× fast → two zeros vanish quickly.

Reality Check:
Slow compounding growth over years unless an unexpected mega-bull & mass adoption hit.

8

1. Year-by-Year Projection Chart (Realistic Burn Model)

Using current price $0.00003968, 6.5T supply, and $20M capital loop (~5% yearly burn)

:green_square: Yearly Burn & Supply Decline (Moderate Scenario)

Year Burned per Year (at current price) Remaining Supply Supply Reduction %
0 (now) 0 6.50T —
1 ~325B 6.18T -5%
2 ~325B 5.87T -10%
3 ~325B 5.54T -15%
4 ~325B 5.22T -20%
5 ~325B 4.91T -25%
10 (long horizon) ~325B/yr → total ~3.2T burned ~3.3T -49%

:pushpin: Removing 1 zero could take ~4–7 years with moderate inflows IF demand also grows.
:pushpin: Removing 2 zeros would require extreme burns + massive adoption, likely >8–15+ years.

2. Best-Case vs Worst-Case Outcome Map

Scenario Type Conditions Result for LUNC
:rocket: Best Case (Bull Cycle + Whitelist + Capital Inflow) TLA whitelisting passes, LUNA incentives strong, APR high initially, TVL grows, burns consistent Gradual price appreciation, more liquidity, increased volume, removal of 1 zero long-term becomes realistic
:slightly_smiling_face: Moderate Case (More realistic) Whitelisted, APR fluctuates, yield decreases as liquidity grows, burns continue but slow Slow deflation (2–6%/yr), modest price growth over years, gradual recovery path
:warning: Risk Case APR drops < borrow rate, low liquidity engagement, whales exit farms Burn velocity stops, price stagnates, strategy loses power
:fire: Collapse Case LUNC used as collateral, price dips 30–50%, liquidation cascade Forced selling → rapid price crash → reverse of goal

Key takeaway:

Success is possible but gradual.
Instant parabolic targets like “remove 2 zeros in 6 months” ignore market math.

3. Improved Price Supply Model (With Dynamic Pricing)

To simulate reality more accurately, we apply:

As price increases, burn efficiency decreases because each dollar buys fewer tokens.

Assume $20M loop with same yield, but LUNC price rises 3× to $0.00012

Stage Price Tokens Burned/Yr Burn Rate vs Supply
Start $0.00003968 325B/yr 5%
Price 3× $0.00012 108B/yr 1.7%
Price 10× (remove 1 zero) $0.0003968 33–35B/yr 0.5%
Price 100× (remove 2 zeros) $0.003968 3.3B/yr 0.05%

:pushpin: Burns become less effective over time as price rises.
:pushpin: To maintain burn velocity at higher prices, capital inflow must increase massively.

Final Macro Summary

Claim Reality
100%→1000% APR? Possible briefly, not sustainable
Remove 2 zeros in 6 months? Mathematically impossible without billions in inflow
Whitelist benefits? Positive — increases liquidity & deflation
Real path to $0.0003968 (1 zero) Multi-year gradual burn + adoption required
Real path to 100× Only through utility + demand + liquidity + burns + hype cycle

Burns alone won’t moon LUNC — utility + liquidity + volume + sentiment = real growth.

9

The mechanics described are not factual, as they depend heavily on external metrics beyond Luna Classic’s control. My concerns regarding the Luna factor remain unaddressed. Where will the necessary funding come from? Your statistics suggest otherwise. While the metrics appear promising, they are unrealistic without sufficient capital.

10

Something is better than nothing. You forgot one thing our voting power on liquidity alliance erisprotocol decides how much higher LUNC APR will be on erisprotocol. Right now yearly incentives are $1.60M.
With all LUNC community support we can easily move 1/3 of this incentives to LUNC pool if, LUNC get whitelisted on liquidity alliance erisprotocol.
LUNA price will not be always at $0.1, once bull cycle arrives it will trade above $1.
TLA incentives will be greater than $16M.
1/3 incentives equals to $5.3M. We can easily get this on our ecosystem to support LUNC growth.
On-chain swaps, transactions will skyrocket to ALL TIME HIGH on LUNC due to TLA FACTOR.
More protocols will start to support LUNC.
More liquidity will come on LUNC chain.
It will have multi dynamics effect on LUNC chain positively.
More users will come to hold and trade LUNC.
$5.3M yealy incentives equals to almost $15,000 daily incentives for LUNC pool on liquidity alliance erisprotocol.
Through this gateway we are not just getting incentives but we can connect to cosmos , Ethereum and more communities and chains simultaneously.
Connect the dots…..

11

It’s not about our marketcap or their market cap. It’s all about how we as LUNC can benefit from the liquidity alliance erisprotocol if we get whitelisted.
We need to get whitelisted on liquidity alliance https://www.erisprotocol.com/ to increase external incentives to support and grow our LUNC chain once again.

12

Let’s just look at the actual Eris Protocol numbers right now so you can have a better understanding of the point I am trying to get across.

FDV barely over $2 millio, 24-hour trading volume $60,501 (that’s sixty thousand dollars, not millions) That’s the entire Liquidity Alliance ecosystem we’re supposedly going to pull a third of the incentives from. Even if LUNA 2.0 pumps 10× tomorrow and the yearly incentives magically become $16 million in USD value, one-third is still only $5.3 million spread across a whole year that is roughly $14,500 per day, $14.5k daily extra yield is nice for stalkers, but it’s not going to drag trading volume from Binance onto our chain when the platform handing out the rewards itself only moves $60k a day total. Terra 2.0 has had Eris live for years and still can’t break $100k daily on-chain volume. This isn’t a flywheel, it’s a tiny bonus on a chain that already proved these incentives don’t move the needle on real on-chain trading activity. I’m not supporting anything that just extracts whatever tiny liquidity we have left to prop up a sister chain that’s been bleeding for three years straight. Happy to vote yes on real utility proposals, but this one is a clear no from me.

13

  • This proposal will not moon LUNC overnight

  • It will not remove zeros quickly

  • It will not bring Binance volume by itself

  • But it CAN help LUNC slowly grow, burn supply, and improve ecosystem positioning

  • It’s a foundation piece, not a final solution

Something incrementally positive ≠ pointless.

Your argument is logical as a risk-based perspective, but it lacks the nuance that yield incentives can grow, liquidity can compound, and integration does have value—even if not a magic pump or flywheel overnight.

This is not a silver bullet, but neither is it useless.This is like installing plumbing in a house.

You still need walls, electricity, roofing (utility, adoption, volume).

But without plumbing the house can’t function.

“This extracts liquidity to prop up Terra 2.0.”

It could divert liquidity if not structured properly.

However:

  • Whitelisting gives LUNC access to incentives, not just LUNA
  • Cross-chain routes can bring external capital → not drain ours
  • It depends HOW the plan is implemented

If done poorly → liquidity drains.
If done strategically → liquidity expands.

“Terra 2.0 has Eris for years and volume still <100k/day.”

:check_mark: True.
This shows incentives alone don’t create volume without demand or utility.

But that doesn’t mean it can’t help LUNC grow gradually if paired with utility development.

“Even with LUNA 10× and incentives $16M/yr, 1/3 is ~$5.3M (~14.5k/day).”

:check_mark: Math correct.
We already calculated $5.3M/yr = ≈133B LUNC burned yearly at current price.

Important point:
$14.5k/day is NOT market-moving on its own.
It won’t bring Binance liquidity.
But it does provide:

  • steady buy pressure
  • compounding deflation
  • yield attraction
  • foundation for future growth

Again: slow positive pressure, not explosive pressure.

14

I get the plumbing analogy sure, incentives are infrastructure. But right now, the house has no walls, no roof, and the city’s basically abandoned. Dropping in pipes doesn’t fix that. It just leaks money if nobody’s moving in. Yeah, $14.5k daily could burn 133 billion LUNC a year on paper. Problem is, that assumes every single token flows through on-chain swaps. Reality? Most volume hides off-chain. Terra 2.0 proved that, same tools, same hype, same results, still 60k/day on the protocol. You’re right, it’s not useless. But let’s stop pretending slow growth justifies funneling whatever liquidity LUNC has left into a ghost chain with a two-million FDV protocol and sixty grand daily volume. That’s not compounding. That’s charity. If we want plumbing, fine let’s build it ourselves. On-chain. With our own demand. Until then, this just reroutes the drip. Still a pass.

15

i understand your concerns.

However, here’s where I believe the opportunity still exists:

1. TLA integration isn’t meant to replace demand — it’s meant to enable it.
Infrastructure doesn’t drive adoption instantly, but adoption won’t come at all if the infrastructure layer is missing. We don’t build pipes because people are already inside — we build them so builders, liquidity, and protocols can move in later.

2. Terra 2.0 underperforming doesn’t automatically mean Terra Classic would.
Different token distribution, different community size, different culture, different narrative. A failed precedent is caution — not a death sentence. If anything, it gives us a template of what not to repeat.

3. The goal isn’t to move ALL liquidity on-chain — just to open a new route for it.
Even if only a fraction of volume flows through, it’s still additive. We’re not giving liquidity away — we’re asking for a seat at an incentives table we currently aren’t part of.

4. We can support TLA without abandoning the focus on building on our own chain.
It’s not mutually exclusive. We can still drive on-chain development, but having access to cross-chain incentives creates optionality instead of isolation.

5. If we wait until the “house is fully built” before laying pipes, we’ll never attract a contractor.
Builders go where liquidity, incentives, and yield exist. Not the other way around.
We need infrastructure → liquidity → apps → users, not apps first, infrastructure later.

I agree TLA won’t moon us overnight.
I agree this isn’t a flywheel yet.

But blocking infrastructure because volume is low ensures volume stays low forever.
It’s a chicken-and-egg problem — and someone has to move first.

So instead of a full yes/no mindset, maybe the real path is:

:play_button: Whitelist LUNC now
:play_button: Start small
:play_button: Monitor actual movement
:play_button: Scale incentives only if they prove effective

If it fails, we turn the tap off.
If it works, we get ahead before everyone shows up later.

Not charity — a low-cost asymmetric bet on future liquidity.

1 Like