LUNAEUR
LUNA / Euro
crypto Composite

That was the entire mechanism of LUNA/UST. If UST was trading below $1, the Terra protocol itself would allow anyone to burn 1 UST for $1 worth of LUNA. And on the other side, if UST was above $1, you could burn LUNA for UST.

>At the time I don't think many people either understand/realize a bunch of new vector of risks that "blockchain" introduces (network congestion, bridge, token mechanism etc etc).
I mean, sure. But also the risk of a unregulated space. And fraud.
>The death spiral mechanic also obvious from the beginning
I don't think it was obvious, the market wasn't pricing it that way. I don't think anyone expected 6 trillion LUNA to be minted. Right?

Yep, LUNA was probably the most shilled before its collapse here because it was performing the best.

It was, by far, my craziest and worst day in crypto. I didn't have any LUNA exposure either, all UST.
The problem was my UST wasn't just in Anchor, it was in Aperture, which at the time was running a delta-neutral strategy using both Anchor and Mirror.
The problem was, Mirror protocol was actually broken for a long time and nobody knew until the crash, when there suddenly wasn't enough money in there for everyone to withdraw.
So I literally couldn't withdraw my UST until the value was significantly down.
I spent that whole night shuttling UST and LUNA back and forth from Terra Station to Kraken, selling LUNA for UST on Kraken and then burning it for more LUNA to sell for more UST.
I made all my money back that way.
I did end up bridging a bunch of LUNA to Ethereum to send to Coinbase (because they only accepted WLUNA because CB was absolute ass back then at supporting networks other than Ethereum). But that bridge was completely clogged. That LUNA didn't come through until the next day, BUT THEN WLUNA SKYROCKETED ON COINBASE!!! I sold that shit instantly and REALLY made my money back. If I held longer I think I could have made about $60k on LUNC that I spent like $1400 on.
I still honestly believe that so much crime happened on that day. But not necessarily crime perpetrated by Do Kwon. I think the LUNA validators (especially Binance and Jump) should be legally liable for cutting UST loose and rebooting the network to let LUNC pump. Even though the precedent that would set would probably kill crypto forever.

About a month before this crash, I was researching savings products to park some money. I needed to either get the money in the market, or put it in a savings product. I was earning interest on CB via USDC deposits, but was wondering if I could be earning more with another crypto product.
This brought me to the Anchor Protocol. A savings product. That is how this was sold to 'investors' as a savings product. Now, a savings product should be zero risk, or close to it. Like a HYSA, a CD, or T bonds. Zero risk, low yield. But, Anchor was different. It advertised zero risk on 20% yield.
This interest rate on zero risk is impossible. It literally doesn't exist. So, I asked myself, what is the catch here? Where is the risk? 20% yield with no risk isn't real. So, I wondered into the Anchor subreddit and asked around. "Hey boys, what is the catch? Where is the risk? This can't be real, there is no such thing as a savings product that earns 20%."
When I posted this in the sub, I was inundated with comments insisting it was actually zero risk. No risk. It's a savings product. I had guys telling me to park my life's savings, that I would be stupid not to... on and on.
I tried to insist this can't be real. That this isn't a savings product, there must be a catch. I also watched that stupid video that put out that explained the peg and the how the yield was earned, which made no fucking sense, and asked the sub to explain it, like I'm five, and no could. No one even tried to understand it. They just blinded trusted that Anchor was a zero risk 20% interest savings product.
Failing to understand the product in any way, I warned the group. "Boys, this is too good to be true". Then, I got flamed, so I checked out. This isn't for me.
About two weeks later, LUNA minted 6 trillion tokens, and it all collapsed. Watched it happen in real time, in that Anchor sub, as people desperately tried to exit, but couldn't. I watched those dudes loose everything.
Moral of the story? If it's too good to be true, it's not true.

Most of the sentiment shift comes from liquidity drying up post-2022, ETF-driven BTC/ETH focus, and trust damage from FTX/LUNA. Retail attention rotated away from mid-cap narratives, so only stronger networks stayed relevant. A few niche experiments like RasputinCoin ($RSPN) still try to build, but visibility is limited.

> LUNA performed amazingly too
TRON is really used, unlike LUNA. Here is an AI summary for this:
> Key Strengths
> Ethereum: Remains the "king" of decentralized finance (DeFi), holding over 68% of total DeFi market share. It is considered roughly 20 times more decentralized than TRON, offering higher security for large-scale institutional assets.
> TRON: Dominates the global USDT (Tether) market, hosting over $85 billion in USDT. By early 2026, TRON's share of total USDT volume grew to nearly 70%, making it the preferred rail for businesses and cross-border transfers, particularly in Asia and emerging markets.
> Trade-offs
> Decentralization: Ethereum’s massive validator set makes it more censorship-resistant. TRON’s reliance on a small number of "Super Representatives" allows for its extreme speed but results in higher centralization.
> Scalability: While Ethereum Mainnet can be slow, users often use Layer-2 networks (like Arbitrum or Polygon) to reduce costs. TRON offers high performance directly on its base layer.
> Developer Activity: Ethereum has roughly 95% more active developers and significantly more code commits compared to TRON.

That was the entire mechanism of LUNA/UST. If UST was trading below $1, the Terra protocol itself would allow anyone to burn 1 UST for $1 worth of LUNA. And on the other side, if UST was above $1, you could burn LUNA for UST.

>At the time I don't think many people either understand/realize a bunch of new vector of risks that "blockchain" introduces (network congestion, bridge, token mechanism etc etc).
I mean, sure. But also the risk of a unregulated space. And fraud.
>The death spiral mechanic also obvious from the beginning
I don't think it was obvious, the market wasn't pricing it that way. I don't think anyone expected 6 trillion LUNA to be minted. Right?

Yep, LUNA was probably the most shilled before its collapse here because it was performing the best.

It was, by far, my craziest and worst day in crypto. I didn't have any LUNA exposure either, all UST.
The problem was my UST wasn't just in Anchor, it was in Aperture, which at the time was running a delta-neutral strategy using both Anchor and Mirror.
The problem was, Mirror protocol was actually broken for a long time and nobody knew until the crash, when there suddenly wasn't enough money in there for everyone to withdraw.
So I literally couldn't withdraw my UST until the value was significantly down.
I spent that whole night shuttling UST and LUNA back and forth from Terra Station to Kraken, selling LUNA for UST on Kraken and then burning it for more LUNA to sell for more UST.
I made all my money back that way.
I did end up bridging a bunch of LUNA to Ethereum to send to Coinbase (because they only accepted WLUNA because CB was absolute ass back then at supporting networks other than Ethereum). But that bridge was completely clogged. That LUNA didn't come through until the next day, BUT THEN WLUNA SKYROCKETED ON COINBASE!!! I sold that shit instantly and REALLY made my money back. If I held longer I think I could have made about $60k on LUNC that I spent like $1400 on.
I still honestly believe that so much crime happened on that day. But not necessarily crime perpetrated by Do Kwon. I think the LUNA validators (especially Binance and Jump) should be legally liable for cutting UST loose and rebooting the network to let LUNC pump. Even though the precedent that would set would probably kill crypto forever.

About a month before this crash, I was researching savings products to park some money. I needed to either get the money in the market, or put it in a savings product. I was earning interest on CB via USDC deposits, but was wondering if I could be earning more with another crypto product.
This brought me to the Anchor Protocol. A savings product. That is how this was sold to 'investors' as a savings product. Now, a savings product should be zero risk, or close to it. Like a HYSA, a CD, or T bonds. Zero risk, low yield. But, Anchor was different. It advertised zero risk on 20% yield.
This interest rate on zero risk is impossible. It literally doesn't exist. So, I asked myself, what is the catch here? Where is the risk? 20% yield with no risk isn't real. So, I wondered into the Anchor subreddit and asked around. "Hey boys, what is the catch? Where is the risk? This can't be real, there is no such thing as a savings product that earns 20%."
When I posted this in the sub, I was inundated with comments insisting it was actually zero risk. No risk. It's a savings product. I had guys telling me to park my life's savings, that I would be stupid not to... on and on.
I tried to insist this can't be real. That this isn't a savings product, there must be a catch. I also watched that stupid video that put out that explained the peg and the how the yield was earned, which made no fucking sense, and asked the sub to explain it, like I'm five, and no could. No one even tried to understand it. They just blinded trusted that Anchor was a zero risk 20% interest savings product.
Failing to understand the product in any way, I warned the group. "Boys, this is too good to be true". Then, I got flamed, so I checked out. This isn't for me.
About two weeks later, LUNA minted 6 trillion tokens, and it all collapsed. Watched it happen in real time, in that Anchor sub, as people desperately tried to exit, but couldn't. I watched those dudes loose everything.
Moral of the story? If it's too good to be true, it's not true.

Most of the sentiment shift comes from liquidity drying up post-2022, ETF-driven BTC/ETH focus, and trust damage from FTX/LUNA. Retail attention rotated away from mid-cap narratives, so only stronger networks stayed relevant. A few niche experiments like RasputinCoin ($RSPN) still try to build, but visibility is limited.

> LUNA performed amazingly too
TRON is really used, unlike LUNA. Here is an AI summary for this:
> Key Strengths
> Ethereum: Remains the "king" of decentralized finance (DeFi), holding over 68% of total DeFi market share. It is considered roughly 20 times more decentralized than TRON, offering higher security for large-scale institutional assets.
> TRON: Dominates the global USDT (Tether) market, hosting over $85 billion in USDT. By early 2026, TRON's share of total USDT volume grew to nearly 70%, making it the preferred rail for businesses and cross-border transfers, particularly in Asia and emerging markets.
> Trade-offs
> Decentralization: Ethereum’s massive validator set makes it more censorship-resistant. TRON’s reliance on a small number of "Super Representatives" allows for its extreme speed but results in higher centralization.
> Scalability: While Ethereum Mainnet can be slow, users often use Layer-2 networks (like Arbitrum or Polygon) to reduce costs. TRON offers high performance directly on its base layer.
> Developer Activity: Ethereum has roughly 95% more active developers and significantly more code commits compared to TRON.