This chain feels like it’s running on borrowed time. For 3.5 years, deposits kept flowing in under the expectation that support would be there—even though the token wasn’t formally delisted. Now it looks like whole segments of users are being nudged to the exits. That’s not just frustrating; it erodes trust.
If the plan was to geo-restrict or exclude certain users after the crash, they should never have continued selling to those same customers. That’s not risk management—that’s poor strategy. Every time a project changes the rules mid-game, it transfers uncertainty to holders, and uncertainty eventually prices itself in.
EU readers: if you’re seeing access narrow or liquidity pockets thin out on your venues, assume volatility will do the opposite—expand. Prepare for slippage, wider spreads, and surprise gaps if/when pairs get pulled. Survival in these phases is about playbooks, not predictions:
Control exposure: use smaller position sizes; let the trade prove itself.
Withdraw early, often: don’t leave balances stranded on venues at policy risk.
Plan exits: place staged limit orders; avoid chasing illiquid moves.
Document changes: screenshots + logs of notices, halts, and ToS updates.
None of this says LUNC must die. But ecosystems don’t fail in one day—they fail by a thousand avoidable decisions. Communication, fairness, and predictable rules are the minimum viable product for any chain that wants to keep retail confidence.
If you’re still in the arena, trade the tape you see, not the story you were sold. Hedging isn’t cynicism—it’s discipline.
Disclaimer: Third-party opinions included. No financial advice. May include sponsored mentions. See T&Cs.