Six hundred and nine dollars versus reality - what you need to know about LUNC and LUNA

Many investors repeat like a mantra: “LUNC has already reached $119 once, it will reach again.” These are just myths and a veiled theory without any basis in market reality. However, the reality is definitely more complicated and requires a deeper understanding of Terra’s history and the differences between the old and new coins.

Old LUNA, which traded at $119

Let’s start by clarifying a key point: the coin that climbed to $119 was the old Terra (LUNA) — from back in the day when the ecosystem operated on the foundations of UST, a stablecoin tied to an algorithm. At the time, the token supply was only around 350 million, and the system was definitely more stable and focused.

When UST lost its peg to the dollar in May 2022, the project entered a downward spiral. Terra was in a state of free fall — an astronomical number of new tokens were issued to save the day. This led to a catastrophic price collapse and a complete reorganization of the project.

Why LUNC will never return to those levels

The result of these events is a bifurcation (bifurcation) of the chain:

• The old LUNA coin has been transformed into Terra Classic (LUNC) — a coin designed for affected users
• New project launched as Terra 2.0 (LUNA) – fresh start with new strategy

This is where the crux of the problem lies. Today’s LUNC is a post-system collapse coin, with its actual all-time high of $119.18 — which is the all-time high of the old LUNA itself before the crisis. But this is the historical price of that coin, not today’s LUNC.

Why is there a six-fold difference? Supply. LUNC currently has a circulating supply of 5.47 trillion coins. This is an astronomical number compared to the 350 million at that time. Such supply inflation means that reaching even $1 requires a market capitalization disproportionate to the real economic values of the project.

Burns and real growth prospects

However, the LUNC project is offered an opportunity — a token burning mechanism. Each transaction contributes to a decrease in the total supply, which could theoretically have a positive impact on the price per token.

However, even with aggressive burns, reaching the price of $1 or even returning to the level of $119 remains practically unrealistic. With trillions of tokens in circulation, the math is brutally clear: even if the whole world invested in LUNC, there wouldn’t be enough capital to push the price to such levels.

The lesson for investors is simple: always verify assumptions before believing in an enthusiastic prediction. The history of LUNC/LUNA is a case study of how token inflation can change everything — even for a project that once dominated the market.