7. Uncertainty of Technical Mechanism
- If the proposal for burning or freezing is not accompanied by a clear and executable technical plan, the validator may reject it.
mr_yutakana
--
Bullish
Referring to the proposal related to Terra Luna Classic (LUNC) or USTC in 2025, it should be noted that this information is hypothetical or based on the dynamics of the crypto community and decision-making patterns in the Terra ecosystem. Here are some possible reasons why the proposal to burn LUNC or freeze USTC this year was rejected by validators:
1. Change in Community Priorities
- By 2025, the focus of the Terra community may have shifted to new projects or initiatives, such as Terra 2.0 or other blockchain ecosystems. Validators may consider the proposal to burn LUNC or freeze USTC no longer relevant to the priorities at that time.
2. Concerns About Long-Term Impact
- Validators may assess that burning LUNC or freezing USTC will not provide long-term benefits for the ecosystem. They may prefer more sustainable solutions, such as increasing the utility of LUNC or integrating with other DeFi projects.
3. Disagreement on Benefit Distribution
- If the proposal to burn or freeze is seen as only benefiting a small portion of LUNC or USTC holders, validators may reject it. They may want a mechanism that is fairer and more inclusive for the entire community.
4. Regulatory Uncertainty
- By 2025, crypto regulation may have evolved to be stricter. Validators may be concerned that burning or freezing assets could violate laws or attract negative attention from regulators.
5. Lack of Community Support
- Validators typically follow the majority voice of the community. If the proposal does not receive sufficient support from LUNC or USTC holders, validators will reject it to avoid conflict or division within the community.
6. Focus on Developing New Ecosystems
- By this year, Terra 2.0 or other derivative projects may have developed rapidly. Validators may prioritize resources and efforts to support these new projects rather than spending time managing old assets like $LUNC or USTC.
~$Continue in the comments
1. Change in Community Priorities
- By 2025, the focus of the Terra community may have shifted to new projects or initiatives, such as Terra 2.0 or other blockchain ecosystems. Validators may consider the proposal to burn LUNC or freeze USTC no longer relevant to the priorities at that time.
2. Concerns About Long-Term Impact
- Validators may assess that burning LUNC or freezing USTC will not provide long-term benefits for the ecosystem. They may prefer more sustainable solutions, such as increasing the utility of LUNC or integrating with other DeFi projects.
3. Disagreement on Benefit Distribution
- If the proposal to burn or freeze is seen as only benefiting a small portion of LUNC or USTC holders, validators may reject it. They may want a mechanism that is fairer and more inclusive for the entire community.
4. Regulatory Uncertainty
- By 2025, crypto regulation may have evolved to be stricter. Validators may be concerned that burning or freezing assets could violate laws or attract negative attention from regulators.
5. Lack of Community Support
- Validators typically follow the majority voice of the community. If the proposal does not receive sufficient support from LUNC or USTC holders, validators will reject it to avoid conflict or division within the community.
6. Focus on Developing New Ecosystems
- By this year, Terra 2.0 or other derivative projects may have developed rapidly. Validators may prioritize resources and efforts to support these new projects rather than spending time managing old assets like $LUNC or USTC.
~$Continue in the comments
Disclaimer: Includes third-party opinions. No financial advice. May include sponsored content. See T&Cs.
197
0