1/8 Terra 2 airdrop on May 27th. 70% for community airdrop. 30% for comm fund.

Terra 2 = community + decentralization.

How much LUNA will there be at genesis? What will the price be? How much will be dumped? What about the VCs from Terra 1?

Let's talk airdrop allocation. 🧵👇

2/8 First of all, when you receive your airdrop it will be in a bonded state, i.e. it will be staked.

To transfer it you will have to unbond, which takes 21 days.

So for the first 21 days, the only liquid LUNA on the market will be the 5MM from the developer allocation.
3/8 How much supply will hit the market 21 days after launch?

Here's a key piece of info:

For pre-attack LUNA, only addresses that had less than 10K LUNA will get the genesis unlock. That means only 6.45% of LUNA pre-attack is eligible for the genesis unlock.

That means...
4/8 Genesis unlock amounts per category:

pre-attack LUNA: ~6,811,200
pre-attack aUST: 30,000,000
post-attack LUNA: 30,000,000
post-attack UST: 45,000,000

Total genesis unlock: ~111,811,200 (12% of total supply).

(Total supply of new LUNA = 1 billion, by the way.)
5/8 What does this mean?

It means the VCs and whales, who had most of their wealth in LUNA with addresses that had more than 10K, will not get anything until their 1 year cliff hits.

Terra 2 will be 100% community built, owned, and used for the first year.
6/8 If the VCs and whales start dumping when their 1 year cliff hits - then good riddance! Cheap LUNA will be their parting gift to the community. Or they can stay and support the project.

The price of LUNA will be strong in the beginning, as the supply will be so constrained.
7/8 Seriously, only 12% of the total LUNA supply will be circulating for the first 6 months. And much of that will remain staked, not sold.

Dumping will be relatively minimal for the first 6 months, giving the chain a chance to prove itself before the cliffs hit.
8/8 So to be clear:

-LUNA price will probably be $5-10 once price settles after a month (see UST futures market);

-LUNA supply will be low for first six months;

-VCs and whales from Terra 1 get nothing for 1 year.

❤️ and RT to combat all the FUD going around!

More from All

1. Mini Thread on Conflicts of Interest involving the authors of the Nature Toilet Paper:
https://t.co/VUYbsKGncx
Kristian G. Andersen
Andrew Rambaut
Ian Lipkin
Edward C. Holmes
Robert F. Garry

2. Thanks to @newboxer007 for forwarding the link to the research by an Australian in Taiwan (not on

3. K.Andersen didn't mention "competing interests"
Only Garry listed Zalgen Labs, which we will look at later.
In acknowledgements, Michael Farzan, Wellcome Trust, NIH, ERC & ARC are mentioned.
Author affiliations listed as usual.
Note the 328 Citations!
https://t.co/nmOeohM89Q


4. Kristian Andersen (1)
Andersen worked with USAMRIID & Fort Detrick scientists on research, with Robert Garry, Jens Kuhn & Sina Bavari among


5. Kristian Andersen (2)
Works at Scripps Research Institute, which WAS in serious financial trouble, haemorrhaging 20 million $ a year.
But just when the first virus cases were emerging, they received great news.
They issued a press release dated November 27, 2019:

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.