LUNAUSDT
LUNA / Tether USD
crypto Composite

tldr; Terraform Labs has filed a lawsuit against Jane Street in Manhattan federal court, accusing the firm of insider trading during the May 2022 Terra collapse. The lawsuit alleges that Jane Street used non-public information, obtained through a former Terraform intern, to adjust positions, reduce losses, and profit while the UST depeg worsened and LUNA lost over $40 billion in value. This legal action is part of Terraform's ongoing bankruptcy recovery efforts to reclaim funds for creditors and token holders.
*This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

remember LUNA ?

still bagholding LUNA ?

It's bait for sure, Kraken is trying to offer me 3% bonus on deposits, but if you look at the small print, you have to keep it on there for a minimum of 18 months and must not move it from exchange during that time period.
While I like Kraken, I'm not keeping a large amount of money with them for a prolonged period of time, to earn some change. 18 months is plenty of time to have another FTX or LUNA type collapse.

These are sharp observations, let me address each:
On adverse selection and trader psychology you're right that a depressed h creates exit incentive for profitable traders. But that's actually a feature, not a bug. When profitable traders exit during stress, they're withdrawing at h < 1, meaning they take a haircut on their junior profits. That withdrawal reduces PNL_pos_tot faster than it reduces Residual, which pushes h back toward 1 for remaining participants. It's a self-correcting mechanism. ADL gives you certainty at the cost of forced liquidation at the worst time — the haircut model gives you optionality. Traders who believe in recovery can hold; traders who want out can leave at a discount. The market prices the stress rather than the protocol dictating it.
On warmup parameterization agreed it shouldn't be static. The spec defines warmup in slots (warmup_period_slots) and the conversion ramps linearly via w_slope_per_step. In practice this would be governance-tunable per market. High vol markets like BTC perps would want longer warmup than a stablecoin pair. The interaction with h during rapid moves is where it gets interesting warmup conversion is invoked on every "touch/settle" operation, and the crank can advance it for idle accounts. So even during cascading liquidations, warmup progress continues and h recovers as profits convert to protected principal and exit the junior pool.
On cross slab margin current design uses isolated margin per slab with global collateral aggregation through the router. C_tot and PNL_pos_tot are the only O(1) global aggregates maintained. Cross-margin across slabs is architecturally possible (router holds the global view) but the v7 spec keeps it isolated intentionally cross-margining between uncorrelated markets introduces systemic risk that defeats the purpose of sharding. A profitable ETH position subsidizing a losing BTC position means ETH slab's h ratio is artificially healthy. Isolation keeps the risk math honest per market.
On the gap between verified invariants and economic behavior 100% agree, that's the honest answer. The Kani proofs verify conservation (no tokens created from nothing), bounded rounding, and that h behaves monotonically under specific operations. They don't prove the mechanism is economically optimal. Historical backtesting against real cascade events (FTX Nov '22, LUNA May '22) is on the roadmap but not done yet. This is explicitly a research project, not production-ready the README says as much.