1.2% Burn & Development Tax During IBC Reopening

I want more burns and also funding oracle pool rewards!!!

When volume is low tax goes down to 0.2 % but when volume is high tax goes up to 1.2 %. So low is like average of last 7 días equal or below 30 B and high is like average of last 7 días equal or above 180 B. With steps of 0.4 % to 67.5 B, 0.6 % to 105 B, 0.8 % to 122.5 B and 1 % to 150 B.

How much projected money will flow from the IBC opening? We dont need a tax that will be “penny-wise and pound foolish.”

1 Like

We shouldn’t be taxing holders who have had their coins stuck. If they want to come on chain we should be welcoming them with open arms

First need fixed max supply no infinite
Burn tax 0.7
oracle pool 0.01
Burn anchor, ozone, lfg ,terra dev & team wallets
For ustc
Andw (without whales wallet) ustc 1:1 usd burn tax 0, oracle pool 0.1 (maybe new reserve wallet tax 0.1 buy back lunc)

The community needs more education. If we are still discussing of increasing the tax and not lowering it we are in trouble. We have to be competive, cheap and fast.

1 Like

We can increase the tax (let’s say to 5%) if we have what people want ~ stability (self-sustaining core design), scarcity (max supplies of Lunc & USTC kept limited by that stable core), and utility created by third parties who also want stability and scarcity. People will pay taxes/fees to access those things.

Of that 5% going toward the fire ~ pull out 5% before the burn for the community pool for community construction.

As the value of Lunc rises, the burn tax (determined as a percentage of the total Lunc transferred in a single transaction) will have to be lowered to avoid high value loss. Start high ~ lessen as the value of Lunc increases (as will activity to maintain the burn rate).

5% are you joking? This is what I mean about education. It’s dangerous to preach without any type of knowledge. We all know that the tax won’t burn the supply we need, we could put a 200% and we will not burn anything. We need volume and utility and with that an AFT to swap. Investors will use any other CEXs than terra station to buy LUNC if we have a high tax, its dumb to increase the tax, we must be lower than cexes. We would people use terra station if we tax them in every move. People that talk about tax are stakers that are not paying a cent in taxes. Thats really easy.

2 Likes

Step one: build/code a stable core!

@Pedrosuarez ~ it’s no joke.

Burning lessens the division of the market cap resulting in a higher value of each Lunc. So, burning has value. That (let’s just say) 5% is increasing the value of each Lunc (as long as the market cap is stable at or above its current level).

You must see all the angles and promote the cause fully & properly for it to be adopted ~ that’s higher education that gets us to higher levels of success. Did you only see ‘5% tax’ and start writing your rebuttal?

The cheaper Lunc units are ~ the less expensive it is to burn large amounts. Now is the time to burn ~ while we construct the stable core. If we have a good core code plan, people will come. As the population increases (as does the value of lunc), that 5% should be lowered to maintain the actual value being burned (as opposed to the amount of Lunc being burned).

:fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire:

Interesting opinion. We’ll have to see how this one shakes out with the governance vote.

Dear, Mpowski

Where is the data when 1.2% first tax implementation?
There is no data in yours, and It’s true, When we’ve got 1.2% tax implementation at first, the transfer volume drops sharply and I remember specific Dapps like NFTs (LuncPunkNFT) can’t use after 1.2% tax because of decreasing users who use NFT Dapps in Terra classic chain.

The less utility, the less transfer volume must come.

We shouldn’t focus on only “burning quantity” and I don’t wanna see the less utility of Terra classic chain again because of high tax implementation.

We have to confirm whether the transfer volume increases or not after IBC reopen.

1 Like

Very thought provocative.

1 Like

While some of the ideas were good, the way many of them were worded was poor.
I do not understand why the 1.2% tax should be applied specifically to Osmosis, when it should be a standard transaction tax. When it is worded as a tax targeted at a specific volume, it tends to sound discriminatory.
The issue of the 1.2% tax causing problems for dApps can be easily solved by exempting multiple transactions done when interacting with dApps through whitelisting. This is already in action as we are not taxed when delegating and we can expand this on an app by app basis.
Factoring in this exemption would have won over the validators who are very much currently voting against this proposal as we speak
I think prior to posting it on Terra Station, you should have also looked at the comments made and factored in the suggestions made .
In future, I do hope you factor in many of the suggestions made. Personally ,I like the idea of a tax on all coins whose owners want available prior to the 21 days undelegation period.
In fact, the tax rate for immediate undelegation can be significantly higher than 1.2%(It can even be 5 to 7%) to to ensure that during bear runs, people do not simply bolt from the chain and if they choose to do so, they play a role in reducing total supply.
It would offer some flexibility to those who may want their coins on an immediate basis and part of the tax can be used to compensate validators for the loss of unstaked coins.

1 Like

@GERALDGERALD Perfect discussion and that’s what it’s all about. We are the biggest force in KRYPTO and everyone has to reckon with us. Let’s take advantage of this and we will be invincible ! Add to that exceptional open minds and we have a great chance to build a new, financially secure home for ourselves and our children. We can push effectively…


                             LUNC <= LUNO => LOGO

hollow_earth_rotate_500_clr-1696728306

Here we are talking about the mechanism

1 Like