/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>55172226
And yes; there is past evidence from Etherscan to suggest that Coinbase owns AT LEAST 58% of the max total supply of WLUNA. They might have even more by now in different wallets. What do those niggas know that we don't?

>>54259884
Sorry, meant to attach this pic instead. Coinbase quickly redistributed the amount to other wallets.

>>53572536
According to whom? You? Pretty sure Coinbase still holds something like at least 58% of WLUNA max total supply; so you're saying that's worth nothing?

>>53176874
And don't forget how Coinbase holds (and apparently still accumulates?) a huge amount of WLUNC. It's a lottery ticket; but why are these big exchanges bothering to still hold or accumulate at all?

>>53027390
I guess nobody knows shit, but hypothetically; since Coinbase owns AT LEAST 58% of the max total supply, could they somehow burn 50% of all WLUNA themselves and thereby raise the price by halving the max total supply from 308B to 154B? If it were possible then even their remaining stack would be worth a lot, and so they would have incentive to do it?

>>52820958
I'm not saying it WILL get pegged, but if its completely worthless then why would Coinbase and Gemini etc bother still holding/accumulating?

>>51491284
Yeah, Coinbase is likely up to something. Looks like they have access to -- or maybe they own -- 58% of the total supply of WLUNC themselves. There is a rumour that they will re-list, but under what circumstances I wonder?

>>51460356
Here is a screenshot for anyone interested from when the Coinbase 10 wallet held 194.3 billion WLUNC, however briefly.

>>51460754
But maybe they are going to burn the vast majority of WLUNC before they re-peg it to LUNA? They definitely have access to at least 58% of the total supply. They could burn 99% of their stack and still make billions with a re-peg. LUNA doesn't even have an ERC-20 version yet. Why are they wasting their time accumulating WLUNC?