Luna Founder Requests Police Protection as Investors Are Visiting His House
news.mt.co.kr
news.mt.co.kr
Wouldn't surprise me if some people can't control their emotions and attempt to lash it all out on the person who in their eyes caused all of this. I have no sympathy with him creating this "guaranteed 20% APY" ponzi scheme but for his own safety it would be wise to go into hiding for the mob which is coming for him.
[0] https://twitter.com/ksicrypto/status/1524760834400006145 [1] https://twitter.com/search?q=%22please%22%20%22life%20saving... [2] https://twitter.com/Mete01524584/status/1524876715692015616
It seems like these people do not understand what LUNA even is.
>[1][2]
These people should not have gone "all in" on a risky investment. Even without the hindsight we have currently algorithmic stablecoins are very risky. LUNA grows in value when demand for UST increases, but if people want to exit the ecosystem that is going to mean that the value for it is going to go down. If a lot of people want to exit at once it will be even worse.
>guaranteed 20% APY
Anchor is just one dapp in the terra ecosystem and at it doesn't offer a guaranteed 20% APY. Also if you are looking for high APY in defi with stablecoins, Anchor isn't the only place to find it. I can easily find ~30% APY in an different algostable right now. Algostables are risky to hold so they incentivize you to provide liquidity with good rates. I also see 50% APY for supplying liquidity between a BUSD and USDT trading pair which is fairly safe, but the rates for this one will drop soon once more people take advantage of this.
People shouldn't go to a casino either thinking it's a money maker. They see a high risk/high reward investment option and are not properly educated about the risk or significantly misinformed with statements like it being "fairly safe". You encouraging people to look for similar ponzi schemes to invest in even though you seem to know a fair bit about how it works, just proves that point.
I agree that you should DYOR, do your own research, and not just trust what others are saying so that you know what you are actually getting yourself into. My point of that comment was that high APR does not necessarily mean that there is high risk.
>You encouraging people to look for similar ponzi schemes to invest in
I am not trying to encourage people and these are not ponzi schemes. If I was trying to encourage people I would link directly to where you can find it. I also tried to be clear in saying that there is always risk in doing this. The fact is projects are looking for liquidity and are willing to pay you for it. This doesn't guarantee that doing so will be profitable for you though.
Its related to the curve wars which itself is an interesting walk through game theory. https://every.to/almanack/curve-wars
They keep saying how this is normal, happens, you will recover, it happened to all of us. Really? 50bilion dollars get hacked and response is "invest more money you will recover".
Then there are multiple crypto ads about protecting your "hard earned money" (wtf whats less hard earned than investing) and about wierd investment tools that will automatically invest into some esoteric assets the host gets stuck reading because even he doesn't know them.
Finally they explain some really complicated mechanism this tech was using. That left me wondering what is this even for?
From outside it all seems quite crazy.
"As the LUNA price continued to plummet, the Chainlink price feed used by the protocols became inaccurate, allowing funds to be borrowed against vastly overpriced LUNA collateral."
Meanwhile they're discovering that these regulations were actually safeguards, and they're not solving any problem. They're just reinventing the wheels of the finance sector.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2022/05/11/luna-n...
Specifically Anchor which was promising 20% returns whilst charging borrowers less than that on the same funds, seemed doomed to failure.
The Terra blockchain is a proof of stake blockchain where you can stake Luna in order to gain rewards from various fees the network collects. Unbonding your staked Luna takes 21 days to complete.
One of the assets which you could use as collateral on Anchor is bLuna. bLuna is a token that represents a Luna that is currently being staked. Anyone who holds bLuna is able to redeem the rewards that staked Luna has accrued since it was last redeemed. When you give it to Anchor as collateral Anchor will start paying it's depositors with those rewards. It is possible to convert a bLuna back into Luna, but this takes at least 21 days to complete as the unstaking process takes 21 days itself. If you don't want to wait that long you can just sell the bLuna to someone else for Luna.
More like an algorithm gone wrong.
On basic: if ust coin(pegged to one dollar, so the target was to keep it at one dollar) lost value(under one dollar) new luna coins were created to buy ust coins.
So.. As long ust coin was under one dollar, it created more and more luna coins to buy ust coins.
I think luna started with like a few million coins and ended with something like 7 or 8 trillion coins, now the network is officially shutdown.
It was a horrible idea.
No matter how good your algorithm is, people will manipulate the open! Book of upcoming trades to make profits, and destroying the coin with it.
Its like knowing what vanguard bak will do, before they even start trading on top of that you can force them to trade im certain ways, because you know how they will react, with hundred percent accuracy!
It was doomed from the beginning.
They were paying existing holders a ridiculously high rate for staking. Where was this coming from if not from new buyers?
The price of a stock can change drastically with almost no money changing hands compared to the market cap. Which would then not be a Ponzi.
2. The price of Luna kept going up
3. Volumes were massive
A Ponzi uses new investments to pay interest. If it doesn't get exponentially increasing revenue it collapses. Paying someone in more tokens or stock is different. If it collapses, it's for different reasons under different circumstances.
It's a lot easier to fabricate market cap than to fabricate cash.
Anchor generated revenue in 2 ways. The first is that it collects staking rewards for collateral that was deposited. The second is that it collected interest on the loans it lent to people. Some of what it was able to collect can be attributed to new buyers because an increase demand for UST increases the value of Luna. This combined with more gas fees means that bLuna holders will be paid out more. bLuna is one of the assets which can be used as collateral on Anchor. Even without new buyers there would still be profit that could be awarded to depositors.
I’m not defending Terra, but we should be precise with our words lest we escape reality ourselves.
I think it was broadly understood that 20% yield wasn't going to be sustainable, but was a tool for short-term user acquisition.
The algorithm isn't good at all. Such catastrophic failure was predicted a few months ago by a lot of people independently. But it is difficult to predict the timing so only few people shorted it at the right time.
Yeah:
> Sick of people calling everything in crypto a Ponzi scheme. Some crypto projects are pump and dump schemes, while others are pyramid schemes. Others are just standard issue fraud. Others are just middlemen skimming of the top. Stop glossing over the diversity in the industry.
probably an attack exploiting bad algorithms, I wouldn't be surprised if the US regulatory captures stablecoins now and it somehow becomes necessary to police the whole world for 'financial terrorism' or something of that nature ...
They sold for real USD. Or sold for another stablecoin (and then into real USD).
I sell the LNA for 11BTC worth of dollars. A meteor comes and destroys the price of LNA, sending it to a penny. When my loan is due, I buy 120LNA for a buck twenty and pay it back. I keep all of the 11BTC worth of dollars, having essentially bought them for a dollar.
Something like that? Seems like it fucks lenders more than holders, but I'm guessing that a lot of holders use some trickery to act as lenders as well. Neat scam.
Remember this is pretty much just doxxing.
I understand ther's a certain amount of schadenfreude here, particularly given Do Kwon's open disdain for nocoiners. I also understand some people have lost their houses (seriously, go look at the TerraLuna subreddit; it's dark). I also realize the irony of an Ancap requesting state protection.
But it's sad to see how many people who somehow feel comfortable with sending other people death threats, directly threaten violence or try and get people injured or killed by the state (ie swatting). It's a form of mental illness and it shouldn't be encouraged.
Wow, these replies right there. Some people lost a lot of money.
Putting your last $50 into stupidcoin might help you break out of the Groundhog Day-esque horror that is working class USA.
Why isn't the same "attack" happening on DAI, which is a big target ($6 bn of DAI worth $1 each, with $10 bn collateralized)?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/05/luna-foundation-guard-bolste...
I do hope he goes to jail - for his own sake. People have been killed for much less money. There are some posts in this thread accepting the violence against him. I disagree, if he broke the law he should be judged and punished fairly, not by mob justice.
Perhaps a suffienciently large rescue early in the problems could have solved it, but confidence is now gone and I can't see it returning to these projects.
https://agora.terra.money/t/luna-go-forward-proposal/7136?fb...
> Let's hodl and believe that Luna rises again!!!!
> Hold on, brothers, summer is coming, the sun and a sea of positivity. There will be a time of growth and huge victories. LUNA ahead!!!
(headline was "Luna Founder Requests Police Protection as Investors Are Visiting His House" at the time, in case it was changed)
let's see if that gamble will work out :p
How is this possible? Is Terra/Luna blockchain centralized?
"Those guys are dumb, they can't see it, but you can, cuz you smart!" (Twitter is geared to show you these hot takes, they also bait reasonable people to 'engage')
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01918...
- Pieter Wuille
- Matt Corallo
- Rusty Russell
- Olaoluwa Osuntokun
- Andrew Poelstra
- Wladimir van der Laan
- Surae and Sarang Noether
- Matthew Green
- Eli Ben-Sasson
- David Burkett
- ... ... (and many many (!) dozens more!)
It is because of so much noise [1], that some other involved sometimes find it hard to stay friendly for an extended period of time (friendliness in this area lead very fast to dubious marketers to abuse (!) that friendliness to market they ponzis. Open source without economic tokens attract less of these people. Some people think it makes open-source + economic tokens a bad idea. Some other disagree and just either avoid the front pages and noise and just code ("cypherpunks write code") and some other struggle to find a balance and communicate more but sometimes a bit rough because of so many scams out there).
In every big community (or country or any other group) you will find nice people and less nice/friendly people. People just see the latter one on twitter (because of how the algo works), and sadly think at all are like that. Sad :( But happily people like skc ask the important questions loudly :)
[1]: new discoveries (like decentralize digiatal bearer assets) that involve money are bound to such frenzies and therefore noise
edit: just for formatting (the bulletpoints of the list)
Given this context, I do not think the police should honor his request. If Do Kwon was American, he would be the sort that would support utter trash like RAGE (Retire All Government Employees). People like him and their mind viruses are destructive to proper civil society.
Then again, the Korean police aren’t stupid. I am guessing they will “protect” him so he can be handed over to the US federal authorities, who haven’t been shy about the fact that they’re looking for him.
Also — if you work in crypto, you want this guy arrested and gone from the scene. These are the sort of selfish bad actors who will shamelessly blow up an industry and blame it on the industry rather than themselves. I can already see Do Kwon becoming the singing voice of why crypto is bad, as a way to save himself.
GP is arguing that certain taxpayers should not receive the services they paid for, on political grounds.
Crypto bros spend all their energy slamming the government. Why should they get to enjoy the protections of the government they hate so much?
Vice versa, endlessly praising your government does not suddenly grant you greater rights and privileges
Well, it shouldn’t anyways.
I think we can discuss the protagonist's hypocrisy, but that's very separate from a government's obligation to its citizens.
Also, a similar standard of need to other requests for protection should be applied to this case.
Which people?
Who are these people? Can you please bring up one specific example of a person who (1) expresses those views, (2) lives in an area where fire service is opt-in, (3) didn't opt-in for fire service, (4) had his house burn down and (5) is upset about not receiving help?
[1] https://www.firehouse.com/operations-training/news/10472820/...
> People like him and their mind viruses are destructive to proper civil society.
I don't think the "proper civil society" response is that they should be subject to criminal attacks.
I am considerably less certain given some of his Twitter postings.
Too many people being able to just disregard the law when they see fit is not an argument for either
* Letting them off
* Allowing more people to break the law as they see fit
Which are the alternatives.
> a strong and powerful position against illegal and unethical actions should be taken to return to a civil society.
This would, imo, be the "arrest them" part of the argument.
“Police protection” tends to imply that you get treated as a special person, someone super important — like a head of state or a political dissident. It’s a bit like having Mark Zuckerberg’s security detail, but through the use of taxpayer funds. In a country where most people don’t have guns and don’t resolve problems through violence, the need for this sort of thing is extremely rare.
As someone who is clearly “not poor,” as he says repeatedly, he should be asked to source his own protection rather than being an undue burden on the South Korean taxpayer. The funds and resources earmarked for police protection would be better spent protecting women fighting for equal representation, against corruption, etc.
Of course, if the guy is actually poor, well, that’s another thing. I don’t think that is what we are dealing with here, however. Keep in mind that he dissolved the South Korean entity for Terra on April 30th…
I know the world isn't just, but it would be nice to see these shysters getting some form of comeuppance. At least Madoff and Skilling ended up in jail.
I personally call this the French/Guillotine Deterrent.
Will be interesting to see what happens with Elizabeth Holmes.
An individual is not destructive to civil society if civil society is healthy.
Readers: please upvote this. I don’t normally ask, and it’s a breach of etiquette to talk about votes. But there’s a line, and I think calling someone a pampered brat while his wife is requesting police protection is the one.
Those can both easily be true, though? And the theoretical protection is for both of them, right? Unless there's a huge amount missing in the story.
Police deciding whether to protect you based on whether you said “governments are bad, people have to be able to stand up to them” or “stay poor” is absurd. It's sad how much hating crypto clouds people's opinions here and elsewhere. You can dislike crypto without basing every tangentially related opinion on what would be disliked most by a crypto investor without other considerations.
Many people in Korea have faced far worse threats than having their doorbell rung without getting personal police protection. If this is indeed the new standard for getting police protection, the Seoul police force needs to start a huge recruitment drive.
It's not the "bell ringing" part that's worrying it's the "people lost tons of money and potentially seek revenge" part
Doesn't seem like a ridiculous position to me.
I vehemently disagree on this. Regardless of what you think of a person, no one should be subject to the violence of a vigilantist mob. Anything else is a huge step back into the middle ages.
It saddens me to no end that the kind of inhuman sentiment that is displayed in comments like the above is becoming more and more en vogue in modern civilization.
But tons of people are at mild risk that doesn't warrant paying 1-6 cops' salaries to keep watch.
I don't think I'm the one here feeling righteous.
Why? States have a monopoly on violence for good reason. If a disgruntled speculator decides to do something stupid for revenge, it's much better for the police to deal with rather than a private guard.
If I read your argument correctly. It's OK for the police to remove protection from people based on the court of public opinion without due process if they are "bad hombres."
If that's true, you are casually suggesting is disregarding the core principles of rule of law and human rights in the society.
I find this attitude very disturbing and discussing. Maybe it's lack of understanding or genuine want to abandon principles of liberal democracies, I don't know.
Based on numair HN comment. It's funny the dude is angry at another dude because of lawlessness and suggests applying lawlessness to the other dude to teach about lawlessness.
Wait... So if he had pulled the exact same scam while longing for more government employees and a bigger part of the public sector in countries' GDP, then he'd be worthy of police protection?
So basically the government should protect people depending whether or not they're pro-government?
I want to see that scammer rot in jail but there's no reason, if he go death threat, that public mob lynching is suddenly okay because he's not a leftist.
Asking someone to stick to their principles or accept they were wrong earlier may not be very kind in this case, but expecting someone to die by the sword they lived by hardly sounds wrong.
I'll agree this shouldn't happen in a civil society, but I also wish people were smart enough to recognize that government and rule of law are a prerequisite for civil society.
The request should be evaluated without bias
New one for me:
> As early as 2012, he proposed the acronym RAGE—Retire All Government Employees—as a shorthand for a first step in the overthrow of the American “regime.” What we needed, Yarvin thought, was a “national CEO, [or] what’s called a dictator.” Yarvin now shies away from the word dictator and seems to be trying to promote a friendlier face of authoritarianism as the solution to our political warfare: “If you’re going to have a monarchy, it has to be a monarchy of everyone,” he said.
* https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right...
> Under his Moldbug pseudonym, Yarvin gave a talk about "rebooting" the American government at the 2012 BIL Conference. He used it to advocate the acronym "RAGE", which he defined as "Retire All Government Employees". Acting as a provocateur, he described what he felt were flaws in the accepted "World War II mythology" alluding to the idea that Hitler's invasions were acts of self-defense. He argued these discrepancies were pushed by America's "ruling communists", who invented political correctness as an "extremely elaborate mechanism for persecuting racists and fascists". "If Americans want to change their government," he said, "they're going to have to get over their dictator phobia."[36]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin#Dark_Enlightenme...
When people push for something, they rarely get what they want. Even when there is a lot of support, the end result is a compromise with the previous status quo. If you push for minimum wage to be $10 and it is currently $5, with enough support you will see an increase but it won't be up to $10.
In turn, people will ask for more than what they actually want. If someone wants a minimum wage of $10, they might ask for $15. So when there is a compromise they are more likely to get what they actually wanted to start with, and maybe even hope for a little more than the minimum of what they wanted.
This of course has limits. If you instead were to push for a minimum wage of $100, you won't get enough support to have any impact at all. But exactly where this threshold is located is something only well known in hindsight, if even then.
So people who push for completely removal of government positions are likely much more interested in a compromise that still has a great deal of government power left, but are using rhetoric that will hopefully shift the window of compromise to be more in their favor. This is why things like 'defund the police' become supported even by people who can easily predict what would happen if the police really were defunded.
Lastly, I am speaking of people who would take positions similar to Do Kwon in general, and not about Do Kwon in specific. I realize that's slightly off topic, but I think it is worth clarifying that not everyone with positions similar to Do Kwon hold such positions for the same reason that Do Kwon does and many of them would be open to reasonable discussions and compromises.
My unpopular opinion is that this guy should be mugged in the streets for running a shitcoin ponzi...but that's just an opinion. In reality, he should be handed to US authorities and serve a long prison term.
I don't know anything about him, but if he is an anti government guy it's very likely that he is indeed in favor of private defense agencies.
[0]: https://theintercept.com/2016/04/11/blackwater-founder-erik-...
There's a real alternate reality on this planet.
Why is it funny? Regardless of how anti-government you are, you're already have a contract with government: they take your money and give you protection. You wish to change this contract, may be even spend time and effort in political activity to get it changed, but it's still there.
The fact that you express your desire to change your contract with somebody does not give them any (moral or legal) right to not follow the contract if it is not yet changed. And especially if, despite your wish to change it, you still follow your side of the contract (pay taxes).
I've already answered that in my comment. You would want to take what's yours according to the contract that you've been forced to sign, even if you are trying to cancel the contract.
Everybody is gangsta until an actual gangster knocks on your door.
Anyway, USDT has no such requirement it's pegged to the dollar by Tether company actually exchanging USDT at 1$.
That's not saying USDT won't crash, (there are reasonable fear of wrongdoings) but those two are really not alike
It should be fairly easy to do a run on USDT, but not sure if anyone would make money from this.