Amend Tax Structure to Better Capitalize Community Pool

Our community pool is drastically underfunded relative to our market cap. This is extremely problematic as it reduces to the community’s ability to fund large, capital intensive projects via community spend proposals. As a community led chain it is now imperative that we ensure the community pool be well funded. I am proposing changing the current tax structure so that 50% of the 0.2% tax be sent to the burn and 50% be sent to the community pool.

Had this been implemented from the beginning of the tax, our community pool would currently be worth approximately 1,150,393 USD as opposed to it’s current approximate USD value of 223,092. (prices from 9:40 pm EST). As this is representative of approximately 1 business quarter, we can multiply that 1,150,393 by 4x and arrive at a new 1 year community pool value of 4,621,572 USD (assuming zero change in price for sake of quick math), which is actually slightly above Terra Rebels projected annual budget requirement.

Without funded core devs who are able to work on the chain full time, it does not matter how much LUNC we burn. In order to create greater value and enable more utility it is imperative that we find a way to rapidly bootstrap up the community pool’s capital on hand.

I propose amending the current tax revenue destination so that 50% of the revenue still goes to the burn wallet with the remaining 50% being sent to the community pool.

Please provide your feedback :slight_smile:


Hell of a lot better than trying to get people to agree to keep changing the tax rate so this definitely is a better option, one I thought would have been proposed sooner but better late than never

1 Like

We need devs ones we can afford

Our community pool is healthy and growing… remember, we only need to develop the core-code that stabilizes the scarcity of both Lunc & USTC. Third-parties will be attracted to that stability of scarcity and fund the building of dapps (utilities) around it and profit off users using their dapps. Those utilities will also help our burning down of the supply of Lunc. That’s how we revive things here. Here’s more detail:

1 Like

Whatever so the crybabies at TR stop blackmailing the community.


Yes, under this tax structure the 0.2% would remain the same, only the revenue destinations would change. It would not impact everyday users, as they will be paying the same % transaction tax.

@ek826 @Zaradar would either of you be able to provide input on the specific parameters that would need to be changed in order for this to work?

@Koch yes but even still we need to have community pool that is larger than $223,092 as a $998mil market cap project. Our budget is laughably small and will remain so for the foreseeable future under the current tax structure. We can and should invest in our collective future by making this change. Just think of the dapps we can attract with a $4.6mil war chest for example.

@Ryan_Spunt Under current structure we can’t afford much of anything quite frankly. As a +990mil USD market cap project its absurd we can’t find the funds on chain to pay for a few full time, world class devs to work on us.

ALL to be clear this is not advocating for any one group/idea/project to get any funds from this. It’s frankly outside the scope of this proposal’s discussion. All this proposal seeks to do is create a large money pile in the community pool. What is to be done with said money pile is outside the bounds of this proposal.

A stable scarcity is far more attractive than a war-chest. 200k$ (and growing) is plenty to build the core that can make that stable scarcity a reality. Third-parties (attracted by that stable scarcity) will fund all else. We need to build and burn, and that core is all we (the community) need to fund (hire someone to code) ~ and it shouldn’t cost more than 200k$ (not even close). Development seems to be overvalued and is driving a fund-raising frenzy, taking away from core development planning. We must know what needs to be built before we build it… All I see now are plans to fund plans to make dev plans.

1 Like

Then maybe it’s time we call Terra Rebels bluff and see if we can attract an actual team or individuals with a solid plan and have TR exit.

I’d just like to note for realities sake that 200K would potentially fund 1 Dev of the caliber needed for a single year, or 2 junior devs for the same amount of time. A team of devs would cost exponentially more for the same given time dilation. Just thought id throw that out there.


Hi sneedpilled i dont know if your aware but at the moment 10% of the total amount burned is minted. Im just wondering because you say 50% goes to burn wallet and 50% community pool but if we do the same way as we doing now it would be 100% that goes into the burn wallet 50% of that gets minted

Either way i think its what we need to fund the devs

1 Like

@clan ~ One dev, of a self-sustaining core, is all we (the community) need to fund and build. Like Bitcoin, one code and done. Third parties do the rest.

Hi Sneed, posting the requested parameters here.

{“rate_min”: “0.5”, “rate_max”: “0.5”, “cap”:{“denom”: “unused”, “amount”: “0” }, “change_rate_max”: “0.0”}


Again, allow me to point out that the latest BTC core protocol update, V24.0, has 528 commits, utilizing 34 contributors for 436 file changes.

While having 369 open PRs

@Clan ~ that’s why we are nowhere near Bitcoin… Overvalued, excessive participation. Perhaps simplifying things and realizing that contributing to core design will be rewarded in a higher valued Lunc is a great start. We must be willing to invest our time and energy (without direct payment) in our attempt to raise the value of each Lunc (indirect payment). That will require coders who have ‘other’ income streams… we can’t rely on those who are desperate for a financial stream (have no other streams).

Swagger - Then yes, in a formalized code specific manner, we under this proposed change would instead mint 50% of the burn revenue, to be then sent to the community pool as opposed to the current 10%.

@Clan I agree with your sentiment, it is hard for people to recognize that dev work due to being such a high demand job as caused an extremely competitive wage floor level. Unfortunately, to attract talent we must offer market competitive wages. I would not work for free and do not expect others to do so as well.

@ek826 thank you. Would anything else need to be changed regarding the burn or does this fully cover altering the reward flow so that 50% flows to the burn wallet and 50% flows to the community pool?


Hi Sneed, that param change is all that is needed.


I was against splitting the burn before and rather preferred adding another 0.1% on the tax but now I understand that splitting might be better. People want to pay tax, seeing what they are actually paying for. Simple burning will not do. Whereas, showing this through the hard work of the developers, is a lot better. It will also help reduce supply somehow as the funds will be stuck in the pool while waiting for the time to pay the developers. More funds available to pay developers will also attract the best of talent and encourage more work on the chain. Thank you for this.

I present to you an effective solution to all issues of financing any expenses and developments for our community:
In order to constantly fill the public pool, it is enough to transfer it and any other income to staking.Staking rewards will allow unlimited time and sufficient funding for any necessary projects and developments.In this case, the public pool will not be depleted or stolen.The first task of our community is to maintain and replenish the public pool.And it is the staking of the public pool that allows you to solve all these issues.

i support this proposal