I like this proposal.
Once we have more data we can go back and analyze the effectiveness of our decision.
Are you writing up the formal proposal or do you want us to do it?
Like this a lot, the narrative:
LUNA supply will go down
Is the best for the LUNA price longterm in my view, more so then more staking rewards…
1 Like
I think the idea of increasing the seiniorage burn up to 95 or 100% is optimal and will be acceptable to most now that we’re adequately funded. For the immediate short term I don’t see a need to burn much, if any, of the community treasury supply. Once many of the Q1/Q2 products will get released, we as a community will be better equipped to see where, if any, glaring opportunities exist to add value to the ecosystem. At which point I think burning a lot of Luna into UST probably makes sense. If the treasury remains too robust, we can allocate additional stable coin distributions to stakers as well as place community funds into anchor to allow them to earn fixed yield. This should allow for grants to be funded just from the interest accrued and we’d retain long term value should we need to increase staking returns in the future (from the principal amount that we’d have stored in anchor.)
I do realize it’s tricky to form a consensus on how and when we would burn the community luna. When it’s the appropriate time for a formal proposal and upon acceptance of it, it most likely makes sense to Burn some immediately for a reserve and then create some sort of schedule for future burns. It’s still all of our money. If we’re all investors at $6, and if we decide to burn at $6 and it goes to $15 we just cost ourselves a lot of money. So i think we need to be judicious how we burn but obviously everyone may have their own opinion–so a general consensus for what percentage of luna to burn at onset and then future fixed dates in time to burn additional luna would take the subjectivity out of people’s opinions on price levels.
In favour of this. Burn it all.
1 Like