1 Lunc for 10 held CONSOLIDATION - Burn 90% INSTANTLY

Summary

Fastest method to reduce total supply is via a method of CONSOLIDATION 1 LUNC for every 10 held. After a 1 for 10 held consolidation . (9 gets burned instantly)

LUNC can achieve an instant 90% supply reduction with an INSTANT BURN that would affect all ON Chain and OFF Chain LUNC held.

6.9 Trillion LUNC supply would become 690 Billion LUNC in an instant - not years in the future.

Reducing the supply with an instant burn by default does not change the MC (Market Cap)
The LUNC value before the consolidation will be automatically revalued and by default will hold a new value 10 times greater.

Example : Lunc 0.0003 becomes 0.0030
IMPORTANT TO NOTE 2 THINGS.

  1. The MC Market Cap is still the same by default at the time of Consolidation.
  2. Does not account for any MC rerating that will likely occur with such a massive supply reduction, so will likely have substantial upside as the LUNC MC Rerates.

Motivation
LUNC Total Supply needs to be greatly reduced.

LUNC Burn rate needs to be accelerated and after the CZ Binance latest AMA certainly showed a reluctance to implement the 1.2% Burn Tax on all transactions OFF CHAIN especially in their CEX.

Proposal
In essence for every 10 LUNC you hold at a set time of implementation of a 1 for 10 Consolidation Burn, would see the existing holding go from 10 LUNC to a new holding of 1 LUNC. (90% BURN)

examples
1 Million existing Lunc becomes 100 Thousand LUNC
10 Million existing Lunc becomes 1 Million LUNC
100 Million existing Lunc becomes 10 Million LUNC
1 Billion LUNC existing becomes 100 Million LUNC

The 90% is removed via instant burning.
NO ENTITIES TO FINANCE ANYTHING and NO PAYMENTS TO ANYONE and NO BUY BACKS APPLICABLE.

After the point of consolidation LUNC holders simply receive revalued LUNC.
Even though you will have less coins, they will have 10X more value as the MC (Market Cap) remains the same. Its not the MC that is getting burned here.

HOW THE MC (Market Cap) WORKS

Example Before Consolidation :
LUNC MC equaling $2,070,000,000
TOTAL Supply = 6.9 Trillion LUNC
LUNC Value = $0.0003

Example AFTER Consolidation :
LUNC MC equaling $2,070,000,000
TOTAL Supply = 690 Billion LUNC
LUNC Value = $0.0030

Market Cap remains the same but the LUNC value is revalued.

Market Cap will likely RERATE significantly just prior and after the instant 90% supply burn is implemented.

PRO’s

P1) Burns 90% of supply instantly.
P2) Revalues LUNC and the LUNC MC will RERATE even Faster
P3) Can be reimplemented later on again and again to reduce supply to the magic 10 Billion number.
(see other thread in General section I made)
P4) The 1.2% Burn Tax can still remain for deposits and withdrawals.
P5) The CEXs could be encouraged to still apply an OFF CHAIN burn tax even if it is at a reduced percentage to not stifle trading volumes. (perhaps 0.3% to 0.5% is less noticeable and more achieved with frequency of CEX trading) Binance CZ latest AMA is now much clearer in their reluctance to implement.
P6) Less supply achieved instantly instead of many years into the future.
P7) Captures the participation of all CEXs, especially a reluctant Binance.

CONs

C1) Just dont see any CONs right now, even more so as was very disappointed with Binance CZ after hearing what was said in the latest AMA.

TECHNICAL QUESTION SUGGESTIONS

TQS1) If each and every LUNC / Wallet Holder / Exchange Account etc can be tagged by a date or some other identifier as prior to a consolidated burn point and they come online or into circulation by trading, the Wallet Holder is automatically resized as per the consolidation ratio of 1 for every 10 held.

UNKNOWN DATA
Not a code write and unsure of the limitations and restraints of code and chain functionality and how it may be done forcibly on the CEXs.

UD1) Unknown technical issues or complexities to implement with the non compliant CEXs
UD2) Can the devs actually do this ?
UD3) Is there some underlying issue that prevents this ?
UD4) Unknown quantity and level of resources that may be required.
UD5) What financial and technical resources if any would be required by the devs to implement ?
(Devs and more experienced people need to provide comment and feedback)

SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO REDUCE THE TOTAL SUPPLY AND WITH NON COMPLIANT CEXs IT WILL TAKE A WILD AMOUNT OF YEARS TO REDUCE SUPPLY.

Looking for constructive dialogue not poorly expressed views without foundation or substance.

I have seen these consolidations work successfully for public listed companies in my 25 plus years of investing and IMO this is most definitely what LUNC should be doing.

Did start a thread in the general discussion and now moving it to the Governance & Proposals section thanks to Binance CZ

Very well thought out.

This will not solve the problem at all. Problem is not LUNC total supply, but USTC is not 1 USD. Look at my proposal how to restore peg steps.

1 Like

O yes it will otherwise what’s the point in burning – flawed thinking.

If we can do a 1 for 10 consolidation and reduce supply to 690 Billion, sorting out the REPEG would be the next priority.

1 Like

An example of the numbers when doing additional consolidations again and again with enough time to pass between consolidation points.

1st Consolidation Point 1 for 10

6.9 Trillion therefore can be turned into 690 Billion - based on for every 10 you hold it now becomes 1.

2nd Consolidation Point 1 for 10

At a later date another 10 for 1 could be done again within 3-12 months.
690 Billion therefore can be turned into 69 Billion - based on for every 10 you hold becomes 1.

3rd and Final Consolidation Point 1 for 10 or a 1 for 7

At a further later date another 10 for 1 or 7 for 1 could be done again within another 3-12 months
69 Billion therefore can be turned into 6.9 Billion - based on for every 10 you hold becomes 1.
OR
69 Billion therefore can be turned into 10 Billion = based on every 7 you hold becomes 1.

NOTE : no allowance for any burn tax reductions - just awareness examples for educational purpose if no 1.2% burn tax was ever implemented

ALTERNATIVE TRADING TAX FOR OFF CHAIN CEXs

Fully understand Binance CZ position regarding the Traders on the CEXs and would like to see an adjusted TRADING TAX be negotiated with an algorithm for traders and their level of frequency.

Could be something that is built upon as a starting point and scales up over a time period.

Example ONLY
Month 1 : 0.1%
Month 2 : 0.2%
Month 3 : 0.3%
Month 4 : 0.4%
Month 5 : 0.5%
Month 6 : 0.6%
Month 7 : 0.7%
Month 8 : 0.8%
Month 9 : 0.9%
Month 10 : 1.0%
Month 11 : 1.1%
Month 12 : 1.2%
Month 13 and beyond : 1.2%

It goes against the Code of Governance that the Lunc Community has come to expect and it is annoying that CEX Traders who can come and go is being used by the CEXs and influencing the community expectations when as per CZs own words that “CEXs should remain Neutral”

Ultimately it will also require 100% support and adoption from all CEXs globally so there is no safe harbor that circumvents the Withdrawal and Deposit Burn tax or that of a Trading Tax OFF CHAIN.

1 Like

Upon reflection this might be part of the solution, I would suggest however at the same time converting all ustc to lunc and then start doing what you said - a kind of reverse split situation for every holder. It leaves a very sour taste in my mouth to do it this way but in the end you are left with one coin lunc and a blockchain.

The mission for LUNC is to burn of this excessive supply.

It should not leave a sour taste in your mouth, as you will not lose value as when the coins are burnt the remaining coins go up in value by default.

FOCUS on the Market Cap as your invested $$$ amount would still remain the same and by rights would and should appreciate even further in value with 690 Billion in circulation.

Senseless to wait 3-5 years when it can be achieved INSTANTLY.

STILL WAITING for more experienced devs and crypto fanatics to provide some comments & guidance around if it COULD BE DONE or provide counter argument as to WHY IT CANT BE DONE.

@ek826 @HappyCattyCrypto1 @Vegas @StrathCole

This is the same as a reverse split. So those hoping for that miracle millionaire status goes away. Or at least it would then be contingent on Lunc getting to $10 instead of a $1. Why would I want my Lunc bag reduced? There are much better ways of doing this. Reverse splits are never good.

Reducing total supply creates a much tighter supply and will therefore create additional value after consolidation as its currently priced in with 6.9T total supply.

Forget the COIN value as it will always be dictated by the Market Cap.

Market Cap has greater opportunity to rise with 90% less coins in circulation.
Do you think LUNC with 690B supply would still be rated at a $2B Market Cap ?
Do you think perhaps $5B or $10B Market Cap or even higher again ?

Your LUNC Bag would still have the same value as the Market Cap is still the same initially.
$2B Market Cap with 2B LUNC = $1 per coin
$2B Market Cap with 20B LUNC = 0.10c per coin
What ever amount of coins you hold will still be proportionate in value to the Market Cap

If I hold 10M Lunc at 0.0003 and a 1:10 reverse split is done, now I only 1M Lunc at 0.003. So if Lunc hits $1 I only have $1M instead of $10M. Now I have to wait for Lunc to get to $10 before I reach my goal. Even if you were able to get back to the all time high market cap of 45B. Lunc would only be at $4.5 with a circulating supply of 10B. No one wants there Lunc reduced 10 fold.

1 Like

Its all about the Market Cap - FOCUS on the Market Cap.

If the coin was to hit $1 after a 1 for 10 it will HAVE THE EXACT SAME Market Cap without the consolidation, which means it would only be 0.10c per coin as the Market Cap would be technically the same.

Your investment would still be proportionate in any future rerating,

More likely to see the Market Cap climb higher with only 690 Billion Supply compared to 6.9 Trillion.

No one is disadvantaged and no one gains an advantage - MUCH FAIRER OUTCOME.

6.9 Trillion supply x $1 = $6.9 Trillion Market Cap —> NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN in our lifetime.
690 Billion supply x $1 = $690 Billion Market Cap —> NOT GOING TO HAPPEN in our lifetime

COMPARISON REALITY CHECK
Today BITCOIN Market Cap = approx $375B
Today TOTAL GLOBAL CRYPTO MARKET CAP = approx $950B

Maybe in many many years to come.
$50 Billion Supply x $1 = $50B Market Cap (requires 6.85 Trillion to be burnt)
$100 Billion Supply x $1 = $100B Market Cap (requires 6.8 Trillion to be burnt)

Do the maths and be real in ones expectations ; )

The higher LUNC Market Cap climbs the less LUNC gets burnt volume wise which takes even longer to reduce supply.

10 Billion Supply IMO is a pipedream and a whole lot of novice wishful thinking without a 1 for 10 consolidation and most likely with additional consolidation points in the future.

Consolidate now and allow devs and the community to focus on UTILITY as this will be the driving force for future upside.

@ek826 @wrapped_dday @vegas @StrathCole

Upon doing a 1 LUNC for 10 Consolidation to initially reduce the Total Supply down to 690 Billion is an INSTANT BURN of 90% of the Supply.

This Consolidation BURN would equal 6.21 Trillion - INSTANTLY BURNED

From within that intended Consolidation BURN amount a proportion could be retained for the BTC pool or USTN or other re peg initiatives instead of minting any additional LUNC or USTC.

From 6.21 Trillion to be burned, 50-100 Billion could be set aside for key objectives to be reached.

ULTIMATELY this method ensures no one is disadvantaged and no one gains an advantage and is a much fairer outcome for all parties.

They just simply need to re-enable reppeg. This community are clueless of what is really happening. The swap can easily reduce Luna Classic to USTC. They just simply need to implement staking also on USTC.

Minting cannot be enabled as it could make things worse by increasing the number of tokens in circulation. :man_facepalming: What you say has no foundation.

@Vendrugo not sure if English is your 2nd Language - BUT no where does it say or imply MINTING so your comment has no substance / foundation - perhaps read again from the beginning.

Consolidation REDUCES the amount of LUNC - NOT increase it.

@Ralph_S Personally I am not a Fan of repegging USTC for a number of reasons. USTC is what got LUNA into this mess and with TFL and LFG not only holding large volumnes and will likely be tied up in legal proceedings for years to come, LUNC needs to fully distance itself with an alternate AFT.

I would support a repegging with an alternate AFT (Algorithmic Fungal Token) instead as long as we have much better pegging controls and more importantly critical emergency protocols that pushes the data to validators.