All validators voting for 1.2% tax should get kicked out

Validators have disabled staking with the reasoning to protect governance and the blockchain and its projects.

Now some of them vote to implement a 1.2% transaction tax.

Many greedy people support it not understanding that

1.They can only tax onchain transaction which makes currently only 5% of all volume
2.A 1.2% tax onchain on each transaction will force to make all dapps/projects leave lunc blockchain
high probably to luna.
3.Activity onchain will deacrease massivly very quickly to probably 1-2% of total volume.
So the burning rate will be irrelevant to total supply

So validators are basicly destroying the blockchain for nothing.

All their poor arguments about protecting the blockchain and projects are getting invalid when voting for it which will exectly do what they claimed they want to protect.

People clearly don’t understand what means onchain and offchain and what adds value to a project.

Do Kwon will be happy when this proposal passes since it will make sure all remaining dapps will have to leave.


Orion is going to vote yes on that proposal any minute. Consider it a done deal. Don’t dwell on it.
After all, governance voting is just symbolic. It is nothing without the actual support from developers.

It existed because some people needed rituals to justify their decisions. For example how the V2 proposal got passed and executed in a rush. Don’t expect to hold the same people hostage by doing it the other way around.


nothing is done deal

there are no devs who will create code
no funding
and most important no 2/3 validators who will update node with new code

1 Like

2/3 of all volume on cex are done via arbitrage bots between exchanges.
You are going to ki.ll also volume of lunc on cex.

and once again some validators proofed what idiots they are ki.lled the chain a second time within 4 weeks

Some people should focus shilling Luna 2 over at

Let the community work on resurrecting the Classic original Luna.

1 Like

it’s over man… the proposal has passed…

now projects will leave Lunc for Luna 2 (same network, with dev team, no 1.2% transaction fee)

we will be kicked out Binance soon… “CEX love to pay us 1.2% transaction tax for every transaction!” fat chance!..

The tax proposal will be accepted tomorrow. And Do Kwon will go to j…l.


Yes, SEC too started search him. 2.0 completed.

1 Like

Why it seems i’m so arrogant ?

I can tell you because i’m tired of the stupidity of majority of people who have no clue what they cause to the blockchain but only greed in their eyes via burning LUNC.

The Burn won’t change ANYTHING.It will create only big trouble because the proposal is so poor its not even thinking one step further.
All they say is we will think later .

Let me give you a simple example.

When you send coins to cex wallet to sell them ,
the cex moves these coins 1-3 times to their cold wallets.
From their cold wallet to withdrawl wallet.
They do it of course for security reasons.
So now they are going to be charges 1.2% for each time they move the coins inside their wallet network.
Means they coins in wallet will very quickly not match with customers coins displayed in their account.
This will lead only to one thing which is getting deli.sted.

And this is just one example of one hundred issues this proposal will create.
But people are simply ignoring any reality just in hope to get a quick pump.

The next hypocaracy we charge dapps which create majority of transactions onchain (which we can only tax) for each transaction 1.2% and on the other proposal which high propoably will pass we take 50% from the tax and give 10% back to dapps claiming to be an incentive.

You see the hypocracy here ?
You charge them 1.2% and give back 0.12% claiming this is an incentive for them to build on the blockchain.
The proposals are horse shit.Not thinking a single step further

But you know what ?Who cares all what is important is a quick pump
that a even heavier dum.p will follow who cares “i” won’t be in it.


not in this case. the voters are mainly supporters of luna 2, we need to enable staking asap to fix that

They are making sure Classic be a ghost chain,for good.

Dictatorship are not good for any community, banning the ones that think differently is prejudice.

If you have a better proposal you can present it to the community, if not you are just creating spam topics.


真正的企业投资者或者是开发团队,可能更喜欢luna v2,但是对于普通人不重要。
2.普通人不会信任luna v2,因为主要持有者正是Do Kwon以及他的开发团队,主要的原因就是luna受到攻击后采取的防御手段令人极度不信任。所以与其说把luna v2当成一个正经投资项目来看,更像是一个诈骗手段。所以并不值得支持。如果lunc项目已经确定没有恢复机会,无论是lunc还是luna v2都不会再具有热度。
3.拯救lunc,也是恢复信任的一种手段,恢复之后,至少能证明无论是社区,还是terra都值得信任(不会轻易的放弃项目)。反而luna v2的出现,会使人放弃关注terra项目,因为不知道会不会有v3, v4。


1 Like

Vote for proposal 4080 - Terra Station - fair distribution of the 1.2 tax

Debating & arguing are worthless.Do something OK?

1 Like

Trading volume is an illusion to the valie of a coin. It’s nice to see high volume, and in our case it can exceed total marketcap value in a 24 hour window.

But Dapps aside for a minute as I will discuss this after (not even disagreeing with you there).

How do these miceo transactions of trading bots affect LUNC and it’s price. Not really much at all imo. This could actually help remove the whales from holding so much as right now they are the ones controling those bots for the most part, and using their huge volumes to control the price. Take that away from them, and their ability to make money, and they will sell. THIS can be a good thing.

YES, there will be short term pain as the price drops, but that can also be an oppertunity for the community to take over and accumulate those tokens super cheap. We become the new whales. This is what SHIB holders did, they bought and held and the movement was so big that it worked. It worked so well the dev team took it from a meme coin and made it a legitamate purpose coin. Diffrence here is that at least as the price moves back up after, and profit selling begins, there will be burning of tokens going on.


Dapps. I agree with you that we need to make it easy (and cheaper) for them. And there was 2 ways I came up with a solution for this.

  1. Have a transaction tax free minimum say 1 to xxx tokens (Scalable of course), no tax charged. This could also help the CEX micro transactions I suppose.

  2. XX% of tax collected goes to a fund to pay back Dapp developers the fees they incurred. This is an ideal solution as it still contributes to burns, but ensures the developers are taken care of. We NEED the Dapps to be happy and making money afterall.

people don’t invest in low volume and low liquidity markets.
It also increases dramaticly the risk of getting deli.sted

Also as lower volume and liqudity as more easier price manipulations are

But that it won’t be low volume. Instead of a small number of coins being traded between bots, it will be actual new positions being opened up or added too. The LUNC market will be opened up so to speak. The price will drop and likley be a vicious drop down, but will then start a proper recovery.

Also if they sell 5 Trillion coins due to the tax causing them to be unable to trade beck n forth to make money, while manipulating our market. That means the tax collected would be 60 Billion coins. Even a third burned would mean 20 Billion coins burned.

This is just a simplistic explanation on a complex issue, but doesn’t invalidate it’s value.

Also do we have a list of Dapps that are still functioning on LUNC, and do we have any info on actual numbers they contribute to volume?

This is what we need to know and start to work with them on ways to help them, not cost them money via tax.

It’s interesting that you all seem to be focused on a possibility of exchanges “needing” to move tokens several times before transferring out of their network to a burn address as well as that the proposed 1.2% burn will destroy utility of LUNC.

I find both ideas possible, but not realistic.

There is only one Hope Diamond in the world and it has a rediculous pricetag even though it has ZERO utility. At some point in world history common rocks picked up off the ground had value for trade and still do to the extent of utility of function. The point is that once value has been attributed to something, that thing retains value in utility as a medium to transfer wealth from one entity to another, especially with the promise of value increasing over time from continued burn. Once the burn is complete and circulation of LUNC is at 10B, then it becomes relatively a DeFi stablecoin which inherently has value as a medium to transfer wealth back and forth between financial institutions, etc.

So, I find the 1.2% tax/burn a great idea there as value will go up from FOMO for the crash victims and then utility will take over to keep it from crashing into oblivion.

As for exchanges “needing to transfer several times before depositing to a burn address”… Simply put, a burn address can be assigned to the network “in house” that directly siphons off the tax burn from each transaction instead of waiting for an exchange to manually perform the function. If that is not feasible, then a rebate function can be programmed in where an exchange is rebated the unintended tax burn from transfers.

Basically put, you all really should be thinking like “the glass is not only half full, but refillable”, not “the glass is half empty and almost gone and then we’re screwed” mentality. If there’s a problem with something, find a solution to make it work or suggest a better idea instead of just trashing others ideas as if you’re running around like the sky is falling…

I can tell you all right now that there is a massive exuberance in the various exchange forums for this 1.2% tax burn and that HODL’ing for a year or two is of great interest for many people, including myself.

My own calculations based on $500M-$250M USD 24hr volume suggest that we may reach the 10B circulation cap in 2 years or less. I believe that this will actually reduce to a year or less as FOMO and market cap increases as circulation decreases, paired with the social perception link between LUNC and LUNA2, which should elevate LUNA2 as well.


I think your worry is superfluous, like you said, 1.2% is hard to implement in cex