metaverse

#LUNC

People voting no on FOREX stating weve already voted for this have NOT been taking part in the validator chat on telegram. The initial proposal suggested investment of 150k in liquidity pools. was pointed out by many validators that this amount was too much which is why we have resubmitted a second proposal asking for 0$ to get everything ready to repeg EUTC and launch the collateralized stablecoin module. The liquidity investment will require another proposal after deployment and the amounts can be any $$$ value we agree on.

Secondly ive notice validators asking to burn the collateral we buy back and this is wrong for so many reasons but here we go i will explain it for you…

Burning secondary collateral (LUNC) in a forex system is fundamentally suicidal because collateral exists to absorb losses.
If you burn it, it stops being collateral.

Why this makes no sense:
•Collateral must be available in stress events (drawdowns, liquidations).
•Burning LUNC permanently removes risk protection.
•You’re left with exposure and no buffer …that’s not a system, that’s gambling.
•It turns a risk-management asset into a marketing gimmick.
•In forex, losses are inevitable burning collateral guarantees insolvency over time.

Simple analogy: 🔥 🧯 🤦‍♂️
Burning collateral is like setting your fire extinguisher on fire because it looks good.

Correct use of secondary collateral:
•Held, vaulted, and liquid
•Used for backstopping, recapitalization, or emergency unwind
•Never destroyed unless the system is being shut down

Thirdly, the vault as well as the liquidity pool funds are owned by the community. We do not have access to these funds because they are collateral that represents the PEG! Funds will be managed and liquidity will be added to pool like we did with USDC using a DAO AFTER being voted by L1 governance

Fourth and lastly, if a validator is voting NO out of emotion, grudge or hate towards the person putting up the proposal rather than voting for what is good for this chain, than perhaps you need to redelegate because this isnt a popularity contest ..this is investors hard earned money and they deserve to have their investments grown not depleted of a slow bleed because of constant inaction by the chain.

So please think about who you are delegating with …validators who do not do their homework or actually take part in constructive conversations for this chain need to be removed.

We are LUNCVERSE Validator , on top of all the hard work we do for L1 were even building #LUNACLASSIC a #Metaverse . $DO is the #1 most held L2 token onchain weve burned over 120 million #LUNC and we are a registered company out of #CostaRica not another chip coin or some loud mouth useless validator leeching funds from this chain for personal gain.

The Nokia owner said this: “We didnt do anything wrong but we still lost”

Wether you make a choice or you dont make a choice, youve made a choice. This chain needs income not burns.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK !

Delegate with us and others who grow this chain👇

Every time I hear someone talk about the metaverse, I notice the same pattern.
They name companies. Platforms. Brands. Hardware. Very few people talk about players. And that’s strange, because without players, none of this exists.

The idea that the #Metaverse will be owned by corporations feels familiar. It mirrors how Web2 evolved centralized platforms extracting value from user activity while users receive convenience in return. We’ve seen this movie before. Social media, streaming, mobile gaming different industries, same power structure.

@Yield Guild Games YGG challenges that assumption in a way that doesn’t rely on slogans or ideology. It does it through practice. Instead of asking who builds the metaverse, YGG asks who sustains it. Games don’t thrive because of whitepapers or marketing campaigns. They thrive because people show up every day. They learn systems, form communities, and invest emotional energy. That labor visible or invisible is what gives virtual worlds life.

So the real question isn’t who owns the servers. It’s who controls the value created inside them. In traditional gaming, control is clear. Publishers own the IP. Platforms own distribution. Players rent access and surrender everything when the rules change. Even competitive scenes ultimately depend on centralized permission. YGG introduces a different center of gravity.

By organizing players into a coordinated network that owns assets, participates in governance, and influences game economies, YGG shifts power toward the edges. Control becomes collective rather than hierarchical. That’s not theoretical. It’s already happening.

When thousands of players collectively decide which games deserve attention, liquidity, and effort, they shape outcomes. Games with strong player economies grow. Those without real engagement fade. This is market selection driven by players, not publishers. And that’s a form of control that’s hard to reverse. Another layer people underestimate is mobility.

In Web2, players are locked into ecosystems. Your progress doesn’t travel well. Your reputation doesn’t transfer. Your assets are trapped. YGG operates across games, chains, and regions. Players aren’t bound to a single platform’s success or failure. That optionality gives players leverage.

If a game stops respecting its community, attention can move elsewhere. Capital can be redeployed. Labor can shift. This forces games to compete for players, not just monetize them. That’s a quiet power shift but a meaningful one.

Control also shows up in governance. In many so-called metaverse projects, governance is cosmetic. Votes exist, but outcomes are pre-determined. YGG’s governance affects real decisions treasury allocation, strategic focus, and ecosystem direction.

When players and stakeholders vote, they aren’t just expressing opinions they’re steering resources. And because those resources are productive, governance has teeth. What fascinates me is how YGG’s model reframes citizenship in digital worlds. Participation isn’t passive. It’s active, earned, and ongoing. Influence grows with contribution, not status. That’s closer to how real communities function.

Of course, decentralization isn’t perfect. Coordination is messy. Decisions take time. Conflicts happen. But those imperfections are signs of genuine agency, not failure. A frictionless system is usually a controlled one. YGG embraces that complexity.

The metaverse isn’t a place you visit. It’s a system you participate in. And systems are shaped by incentives. YGG aligns incentives around long-term engagement instead of short-term extraction. That alignment is what gives players real control. Another overlooked aspect is cultural ownership.

YGG’s regional guilds reflect local cultures, languages, and values. This prevents a single narrative from dominating. The metaverse becomes plural, not monolithic. Different communities experiment with different approaches and learn from each other. That diversity is strength. When control is centralized, culture flattens. When control is distributed, culture evolves.

When people ask me who controls the metaverse, I don’t point to a company or a protocol. I point to communities that own their tools, coordinate their labor, and refuse to be treated as disposable users. YGG isn’t trying to own the metaverse. It’s helping players own their place within it. And that distinction might define the next decade of digital worlds.

@Yield Guild Games
#YGGPlay
$YGG