Sep. 3, 2026
Dear Commissioners and Staff: I am an investor who suffered losses in connection with the collapse of TerraUSD (“UST”) and a potential claimant under the Proposed Plan of Distribution in the matter of Tai Mo Shan Limited, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-22382. I respectfully request that the Commission clarify the treatment of UST that was deposited into the Anchor Protocol during the Relevant Period and represented by aUST. Section II.C of the Plan of Allocation provides that transactions executed through smart contracts may be eligible to the extent that they result in the claimant’s acquisition or loss of beneficial ownership of UST. The Proposed Plan also expressly addresses wrapped UST, but it does not explain how UST deposited into Anchor Earn and represented by aUST should be treated. This distinction is important for a substantial number of Terra users. When an investor deposited UST directly into Anchor Earn, the investor transferred UST to the Anchor money-market smart contract and received aUST in return. aUST functioned as the protocol’s interest-bearing receipt representing the investor’s deposit position. It could subsequently be redeemed through Anchor for UST at the applicable protocol exchange rate. The increasing aUST/UST exchange rate reflected yield accrued to the underlying deposit. Accordingly, I respectfully urge the Commission to clarify that, where a claimant can demonstrate that: the claimant acquired UST during the Relevant Period; the claimant directly deposited that UST into Anchor; the claimant received and retained the corresponding aUST representing that deposit; and the relevant transactions can be traced on-chain, the deposit into Anchor and receipt of aUST should not, by itself, cause the claimant to lose eligibility for recovery on the underlying UST. In such circumstances, aUST was not being used merely to obtain synthetic price exposure to UST. Rather, it represented the claimant’s redeemable position arising from UST actually deposited into the Anchor smart contract. I also respectfully request clarification regarding the following related issues: whether the original acquisition date and cost basis of the deposited UST should continue to apply while the UST is represented by aUST; whether minting aUST upon an Anchor deposit should be treated as a continuation of the claimant’s beneficial ownership rather than a disposition of the underlying UST; how UST subsequently redeemed from Anchor after May 8, 2022 should be treated for purposes of FIFO matching and Recognized Loss; and what documentation the Fund Administrator will accept to establish this chain of ownership, including blockchain transaction records showing UST deposits, aUST minting and burning, Anchor redemptions, and subsequent exchange transaction records. Clear guidance on this issue before the claims process begins would help avoid inconsistent treatment of similarly situated investors and would allow claimants to preserve and submit the appropriate evidence. I respectfully ask the Commission to address the treatment of Anchor/aUST positions expressly in the final Plan of Distribution or in subsequent claimant guidance. Thank you for considering this comment. Respectfully, Rafał Perzyna Poland