Red flag: Do Kwon instantly made plans to relaunch
Days later, Do Kwon was back at it again, with a new plan to get rid of the stablecoin and relaunch Luna as a standalone crypto token. When Do Kwon first proposed this, my jaw dropped. Surely he would not get away with it. Surely regulators would step in. Surely his original investors would not fall for this plan, again. I was relieved when I saw the community responses to his proposal, which were basically saying, "Hey, we bought tickets to the Fyre Festivalonce. We're not going to fall for that one again." Fool investors once, shame on you. Fool investors twice, shame on the industry. Red flag: Do Kwon changed the proposal after voting began Do Kwon's first proposal didn't fly, so he did another one, which he revised and called "Final." Then he revised it again, and put it to community vote. Then he revised it again, while the voting was taking place. I am astonished that the crypto media industry has not spoken out with a unified voice against this behavior. You can't change a proposal while the voting is in progress. (Somewhere along the way, Terra's legal team quit.) A more careful and thoughtful process might have allowed Do Kwon to come up with a plan to save the stablecoin (as I suggested), but he did the opposite, editing the proposal on the fly. From the outside, it looked haphazard and slapdash. This is certainly not in the interest of investors, who really have no idea what they're voting for, since the proposal was changed mid-vote. I'm still shaking my head over this. Red flag: the vote passed anyway So how on God's green Earth did this proposal pass? Terra's investors are desperate. They lost everything when the stablecoin collapsed: both UST (the stablecoin) and LUNA (the crypto token) essentially went to zero. Because this is crypto, there's no regulator protection, no insurance payout, and no FDIC. What Do Kwon offered them was a faint glimmer of hope: maybe if they ditched the stablecoin, called the failure an "attack," rebranded the failed stablecoin as "Terra Classic" (not "Terra Disaster"), then relaunched as LUNA 2.0, it would go to the moon. (Remember: "Luna" means "moon." The implied promise is that this time it will go to the moon.)
Now, let's walk through investor psychology. When Luna 2.0 launches, how many investors will stick around to be burned again? No doubt, some hardcore LUNAtics will keep the faith. They'll brag about their diamond hands, and how they're holding to the moon. But most investors, I think, will be happy to cash out as quickly as possible, recouping some of their losses and leaving others to hold the bag. A class-action lawsuit might have worked better while there was still some money left in the bank. (You can bet those will still be coming.) But most people, I think, are hoping that by restoring LUNA from a "snapshot" of the blockchain when the price was still high, they'll be able to cash out for something, and something is better than nothing. Huge red flag: Exchanges are going along with this I'm disappointed in the exchanges that will list the new LUNA token, specifically Binance and FTX, for not doing more to protect the investors they supposedly represent. It is going to be difficult for exchanges to explain to regulators how they enabled Terra to relaunch just days after its collapse, and how this was in the best interest of their customers. There's another obvious solution: they simply refuse to list the new LUNA token. Otherwise, they are complicit in this scheme by allowing their customers to buy and sell a token that just collapsed two weeks ago. I'm disappointed that the crypto news media, and the industry itself, are turning a blind eye toward this behavior. Will someone, somewhere speak up about what's happening? I'm speaking up.
On behalf of the investors who don't understand what's happening, who just want their money back, and who are going to be twice as mad when they get twice as burned, we need to say it: this is wrong. You'd have to be a LUNAtic to re-invest As value investors, ask yourself: where's the value? Is Terra, the technology, really providing additional value to the world? Here's the list of apps built on Terra before the collapse: besides Anchor, have you ever heard of any of these? Before the collapse, Anchor was the dominant player in Terra, but only because it was paying out 19.5% interest funded by a reserve account. How is that adding value to anyone, anywhere? Creating a new token out of thin air, getting rid of the stablecoin, and pretending as if nothing happened: how is that creating value? This is crypto, so anything could happen. LUNA really might still go to the moon. I'm not a financial adviser, so I can't tell you what to do. All I can say is that I wouldn't touch LUNA with a moon-length pole. | 