由 Maximilian The fate of Luna Classic (LUNC) is inextricably linked to the stability of TerraUSD Classic (USTC). A compelling question arises: if LUNC’s success hinges, in part, on USTC’s return to $1, why isn’t the community dedicating more resources to boosting USTC? This article explores this strategic conundrum. The argument presented centers on the stark difference in circulating supply: USTC boasts a significantly smaller supply than LUNC. This disparity suggests that diverting a portion of community efforts and investments towards USTC could be a more efficient strategy. By focusing resources on stabilizing USTC, the logic follows that a more stable USTC would positively impact LUNC’s price and overall health. This is predicated on the belief that a stable USTC serves as a crucial foundation for LUNC’s long-term success. However, the effectiveness of such a strategy remains debatable. The lower circulating supply of USTC makes it theoretically easier to manipulate its price through concentrated buying pressure, compared to LUNC. On the other hand, the success of this approach depends heavily on community coordination and avoiding any potential pitfalls of concentrated buying, which could lead to a price crash if poorly managed. This approach requires a significant degree of coordination and trust within the community. Any significant price manipulation attempts could also attract regulatory scrutiny. Furthermore, focusing solely on USTC might neglect other crucial aspects of LUNC’s revitalization, such as improving its burning mechanism or exploring new use cases. Ultimately, this article poses a critical question for the LUNC community: Is a targeted, resource-intensive effort on USTC stabilization the optimal path towards a broader LUNC resurgence? While the potential benefits are significant, the risks and potential drawbacks necessitate a careful and nuanced evaluation. The author humbly acknowledges that this is just one perspective, and other strategies and viewpoints should also be considered.