Tbf we can agree on that. Really cba with th drama, respect to Ed for behaving like a pro.
Re Terran Dev, which dev was that and how do you know what he was asking for? As far as the pay goes I agree tbh it’s probably the extent of what we should be paying as a community. If they want more agreed it needs scaling and breaking down as conditional payment.
True I did bring TR up as I don’t believe much that comes from TR anymore. To be clear I don’t think TR are liars in general, just very selective and duplicitous. Make of that what you will
Yeah so TR managed to sack four chief quants Faffy, then Alex, then Faffy… again, then Alex again… then managed to cause a split where Marv ended up leaving and Ed and finally
Managed to send Zaradar on his way. TR was good when it was all encompassing and a team/community place. It very quickly turned into an us and them situation when the mods and others started to turn it into a “fund us it’s your problem otherwise we’re off” knowing full well they had the community by the balls at the time. Mercifully the L1 team stepped up and possibly notional in the background.
Also re the hypothetical yeah you’re right probably wouldn’t have got this far if that had happened but your hypothetical misses out a key point… it didn’t? We’re living in the real world where things did happen and Echchelon and Clan and Rex scoffed at the community. You’re welcome to see the tweets, LUNC dao chronicalled them well tbh. Also I’d go as far as saying if TR had been honest about what they planned to do with remuneration it would have been supported but again we live in reality where history has been written and not in make belief world.
No one’s cutting and running… most people just don’t value TR anymore. You can try to justify TR’s existence as much as you’d like but the PR from about mid October onwards was dreadful and TR showed what they really thought and felt. Once again good luck to you/TR on trying to pass any meaningful spending prop. TR self inflicted the damage and if you wanna stick to it go for it. I really do not see what value TR can/will produce nor do I see a need for the org, again feel free to do what Rex kept threatening to do, go out to cosmos and find work out there if you can (doubt it).
I had a lot of time for you redline I really did. Hurts me to see it this way but honestly if you can’t see the wood from the trees by now it truly is a loss.
Again, if am reading the code correctly, it adds a new parameter (burn_tax_split) to the existing treasury module parameters and starts with the default split value of 50%
@LuncBurnArmy, @ek826
Is this the relevant PR that needs to be merged to activate the parameterization under discussion in the context of this solution?
@godoal Yes if we can get parameterisation I support going ahead with the 50/50% split at this time. I think it’s a good mechanism to have for later if we can change the values, such as 80/20% or 90/10% if we raised the burn tax. Plus we could always set it to 100/0% I assume if we wanted. Seems like a good feature to have which can direct more funds to CP, and if we overfund CP we can always overflow to the oracle rewards pool. Please L1 team give us some more communication on this topic. Regards.
L1 team and community reps, it’s the 11th of Feb. If you put this up for vote today we still need 7 days to pass putting us to the 18th. Then we need time for validators to upgrade to v1.0.6.
You need to explain if you are parameterising the change or not, if so, I support the vote with a YES as the mechanism is useful for LUNC.
We need to secure Binance’s burns by 1st of March. LUNC is going to pump when Binance burns again. Let’s go go go go go!
The 50/50 burn tax split feature has been parameterized, with the intention to provide the ability for this to be modified through governance in the future.
Yes, correct it will be parameterized. The intention is to allow for future changes to the percentage to be able to be modified as a parameter and decided by governance.
YES! Awesome! Great work L1 team I am very happy to vote for this proposal. Please put it up for vote as soon as you are ready. Thank you for the clarification.
With the parameterisation we can have 50/50 now to pump the CP with funds, then adjust it later if community approves any raising of tax. It’s a good mechanism to have.
I suggest L1 look into a CP cap soon as it will likely be needed with this added funding rate. For example on-chain burns are about 50M per day, 50% is 25M which is 750M per month, and we already are close to funding L1 with just gas fees. So we will likely need a CAP mechanism for the CP soon due to over funding, if you can suggest this idea to the L1.
My idea for that is a CAP of maybe 2 billion LUNC, after which overflows 100% to the oracle rewards pool to help fund it.
Honest question: how much LUNC do you think Binance burns per month? And are you aware how much of the total supply that is, per burn? And if you are, why do you believe Binance burns are integral to LUNC’s success?
I’m genuinely curious why so many of you are obsessed over this trivial burn initiative.
The LUNC supply numbers roughly ~7 trillion tokens. Go ahead and calculate how long it’ll take Binance to burn through that, and then tell me we should be bending over backwards to accommodate them.
Are you aware successful chains have anywhere from 30-50 developers working on them full-time? Are you also aware that these are considered “small teams”? LUNC has, what, 5 devs on the L1JTF, most of whom aren’t even salaried full-time employees? Capping any fund influx is silly - we need to bankroll at least 20 more devs and get them working on the ecosystem ASAP. If we had $5,000,000 in the CP right now it still wouldn’t be enough to cover all the expenses and dev work we’d need to prepare the chain for the next bullrun.
I’m not trying to be an ass to you, but you’re so green it hurts.
Read up on blockchain development and team funding/size a bit.
With regards to Binance, for one it is excellent to have a partnership with the most dominant exchange who has decided to contribute millions to reducing the LUNC supply. CZ has publicly spoken against FTX who have been alleged to be the cause of the original de-peg attack. Binance held LUNC worth billions which became worth almost nothing. Binance is still holding that LUNC. LUNC is one of the higher volume coins, especially when it pumps, has a big and passionate community. So they have a lot of skin in the game and reasons for a mutually beneficial partnership with LUNC. It also looks good to other investors to have Binance involved with LUNC.
By agreeing to continue our partnership with Binance by meeting their conditions for wallet whitelist on their internal wallets and having stopping minting, we show we value their support and make up for the minting situation. Also we have more to gain with Binance than without them. They voluntarily burn way more than we get from the on-chain tax on their internal wallets. If we reject them we possibly lose those burns, the partnership, suffer bad PR, negative community reaction and price sentiment. It’s seems like a win-win to me to continue with Binance.
I’m well aware current burning rates of 0.1% off-chain on Binance’s fees will take a long time, but I see beyond that. Binance burned 6.4 billion the last month they burned, which would take at the current rate at least 89 years to burn almost all the LUNC supply.
But even if it takes a long time, Binance burns bring hype, good price sentiment. The price often increases when Binance burns, and greater volume can lead to higher burns, and I want LUNC to go up. These are fine reasons to continue the burns with Binance, even as they are without being increased.
Aside from all those reasons, for myself personally and for those in my prophetic group, I have received prophecy from God that Binance will be instrumental in massively increasing the LUNC burns and causing the price to skyrocket. I am also at this time focused on LUNC and no other coin, and believe in it’s potential, having seen in prophetic dreams LUNC over $200 in the future and USTC over $5, and many more dreams.
I first bought some LUNC on the 13th of May, when it was cheap, not knowing much about it but having received a dream from God of seeing its price at $0.50 (see below).
I continued to receive dreams from the Lord about LUNC.I was not a pre-crash investor, but I bought LUNC from 13th May and paid close attention thereafter, I don’t think you can consider that as green, being 8 months ago. I was into crypto otherwise since late 2017.
As to your thoughts on $5 million in the CP being small I don’t agree. Can you explain in more detail what benefit those 20 or 30 devs would provide over the cost of engaging them and what projects you would expect them to work on?
We have a lean and efficient L1 team needing only 900M LUNC per quarter for funding. They are on track to accomplish parity with LUNA at the end of Q1. We don’t need to throw money at things, we need to have a good business proposal before funding anything.
I see we are tracking well with the L1 team, and could add a few more paid dev members when our funding rate is sufficient (with the 50/50 on-chain tax split we can afford it). LUNA has a big team and $400M in their community pool but are they any better than LUNC? No. The situation with LUNC’s infrastructure costs are stable for now, but ideally we should have enough to fund that too.
I see it as rather than having a big honey pot for people to try to claim, we can run a lean team while our price is still low, and focus on funding the oracle rewards pool with any overflow of the capped community pool. The amount for the cap is subject to debate, I believe it should be a good amount but not excessive, and I believe the CAP is a useful function where we can automatically and without continuing proposals being needed, direct funds to the oracle rewards pool. A sustainable staking reserve for LUNC I believe is a big priority into the future for a sustainable LUNC for years ahead.
We don’t have a partnership with them. “Partnership” implies equal leverage. That, we do not have. They are the Lord, and we are their Vassal. Also, partners don’t threaten each other (as Binance did, in no uncertain terms, when they implied they’d shut down the burns if their whitelisting demands weren’t met).
CZ spoke against FTX because they were Binance’s largest competitor. This has nothing to do with LUNC, or our “partnership” with Binance. Also, FTX didn’t cause the depeg - the bank run did. FTX helped, but they didn’t cause it, nor were they the biggest culprit in the sequence of events that led to the crash. Kwonzi and his apologists are trying to leverage the whole FTX crash to wash blame from TFL. Fact is, Kwon was warned repeatedly what could happen, and he ignored it while gloating. Then his empire crumbled for the exact same reason people said it would. Hubris cometh before the fall, and all that.
True. No disagreement there.
Untrue. Binance has no skin in the game here - they can pull out any time they want, and not feel a thing. Also, again, we do not have a partnership with them. Nor is it mutually beneficial - the positive PR and volume Binance enjoys from supporting LUNC far outweighs the amount of money they lose burning trivial amounts of the token’s overall supply.
Meh. But alright, I’m not gonna nitpick this point.
It’s an uneven trade. Binance gains much more than LUNC does.
Most retail who invested in LUNC post-crash did it on the assumption the ecosystem was in need in repair, but that once fully revived it would remain a decentralized, people-controlled one. This latest Binance whitelisting situation is an antithesis of that assumption. Ergo, by definition, we are trampling on the promises and hopes of most retail who put their hard-earned money into LUNC.
Binance is a multi-billion dollar company. Once a company gets to that size it starts prioritizing other factors above money: time, reach, PR, growth potential, influence, market penetration, etc. A couple million dollars tossed into a LUNC oven means nothing if it’ll buy headlines all over the world, and will allow Binance to build its image and bill itself as a “crypto savior” who’s helping to revive a fallen ecosystem which directly crashed the whole space. You’re thinking as an individual who doesn’t have access to metrics collated from the entire world and literally a small army of PhDs in various fields. Binance plays the long game, they play the global game, and them “helping” LUNC is a laughable premise. Their “voluntary burn” is a global PR gimmick, nothing more.
We’d lose the burns, sure. The “partnership” isn’t worth all that much IMHO (for all the reasons I stated above). Bad PR would impact Binance more than LUNC, as LUNC is already drowning in a swamp of its own without much investor confidence (not like we can sink any lower). Community reaction is irrelevant, because most of the community is simply wrong on this issue. And price sentiment depressing the coin’s value would be a good thing since it’d shake off many of the parasites and whales choking the ecosystem to death (including the YouTube influencer-validators). All in all, these losses would be trivial for LUNC.
I agree, but only if they stop making demands of us to whitelist them.
You’re making my point for me.
I don’t disagree. But again, it’s all fine and dandy until they start making unreasonable demands of us.
We need another flash-crash and shakeout to dislodge the parasitic elements from the ecosystem. There’s no way to revive and restore it before a good portion of the paper-hands sell. The price going up in the short term is a net negative, not a positive.
Again, true… as long as Binance stops making unreasonable and asymmetric demands.
I won’t insult you, but I will say this: none of that has any tangible proof, nor should it be taken at face value.
You should do a lot more reading about blockchain tech.
You speak with authority but lack foundational, basic knowledge.
Same as above. Do more reading. Self-educate. You’re still green.
Here you go, read this Medium article by Professor Kim:
Namely, the Summary of Present State section. We need an army of devs just to bring the chain up to feature-completeness and parity, let alone continue upgrading it to remain competitive with others in the Cosmos ecosystem and beyond. A literal handful of devs working part-time will never be able to achieve this on their own. Not in any acceptable time frame.
It’s not enough. A healthy chain should have 20+ devs at a minimum, all full-time/salaried.
Parity is just the beginning.
The CP should never be capped. The chain can never have enough money for development. Also, filling the CP and throwing money away frivolously aren’t mutually inclusive actions - your logic is flawed.
You’ve got that backward: it should be, “we need to secure as much money as possible to bring as many devs as possible into the ecosystem”. You’re looking at this from the perspective of a single person (or at best, a small business owner), when in reality LUNC is a $1B+ asset whose growth is limited only by the availability of funding and dev work. You have the wrong mentality - it takes a megalomaniacal bent to run a successful mutli-billion dollar enterprise, not the sputtering and timid approach of a local shopkeeper operating a Mom & Pops corner store.
The Oracle should be refilled through ecosystem functionality, not through trivial overflow that’s better used to fund development work. Any addition to the ecosystem made by a single developer has long-term and exponential benefits for the entire chain. Devs are force multipliers - their work pays dividends years into the future. Any $1 of value spent on dev work is the equivalent of $100 or $1,000 (or even more) dollars of liquid assets you could throw into the Oracle right now. Again, you’re looking at the blockchain from a limited, short-sighted, and overall uneducated perspective.
You don’t expand a business by stifling its growth potential. Why do you think any Silicon Valley company does multiple rounds of investment (seed accelerators, angel investors, VC capital, etc.), and the first thing they do with the money at every step is go on an aggressive hiring spree? How much would’ve Facebook grown if they’d stuck to only 5 developers? What you’re suggesting will choke the chain to death. We need 20 devs at a minimum… 50 would be ideal. Having ~50 core devs could perhaps get LUNC in shape by the time of the next bullrun.
Here, educate yourself, and understand just how understaffed LUNC is:
They’re worse off because there’s far less interest in 2UNA than LUNC. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pursue funding just because their money couldn’t buy them support. Why do you make these leaps of logic? It’s absurd, and buries any argument you’re trying to make.
Key words: for now.
Go to Silicon Valley and pick any startup, ask them how many devs they want?
Chances are, they’ll say “As many as we can afford!”
LUNC is no different.
You need to self-educate more, Christopher. You have gaping holes in your knowledge base.
And no, receiving “prophetic visions from the Lord” will not and cannot help you there.
I guess I don’t get it wrong. The coin sent for manual burns will not be printed again. Did I get right. If so, that’s good news.
While some of them were trying to get support from exchanges such as binance, they told us that they could provide financing to the developer team if we wanted, but that we should not print back the coins that were sent manually for burning. and I think they are right. We asked for a listing on exchanges such as coindesk for weeks and we could not get any results. I have a hard time understanding why there are people who see this support as unimportant.
There are definitely people in this community with serious problems and all they do is cause trouble or try to keep it going.
so tiring
Remember when the community passed a proposal to mint 50% of Binance’s burns? Binance gave that money for burning but the community misled by bad actors decided they could re-purpose (steal) Binance’s money without permission. That was a demonstration of leverage was it not? It seems you underestimate how bad that was, did you support that at the time? I don’t remember seeing you posting then, you’ve only had an account here for three months. I only made an account recently but I’ve been following LUNC on Agora for a long time before that. (Binances requests are reasonable, and the wallet whitelist is a great idea. A total win-win for LUNC. In fact we should prepare to whitelist other exchanges who agree to burn off-chain for us.
Binance burned voluntarily. They have simple conditions after we mistreated them by minting their burns. If we don’t comply they stop burning. It’s not blackmail. It’s just a basic partnership relationship with fair conditions.
How do you know this?
Why does whitelisting CEX internal wallets subject to on-chain tax so we can leverage more burns from them for our benfit losing decentralisation? This proposal is about to come up for a vote you are welcome to vote NO.
That’s fine by me if Binance wants good PR from their relationship with LUNC. What I want is Binance to increase their burns, and I believe they will.
I’m glad you admitted you want LUNC to crash. I’ve been saying this about you all along. I want LUNC to rise and succeed and you want it to crash.
No we don’t. I read that article when it was posted by Ed, and supported the gas increase because of it. A few devs are on track to reach parity with LUNA in 3 months costing us only 900M LUNC.
I used the example of LUNA because they have way more devs and $400M in their community pool and working on all sorts of things, but it didn’t produce results for them. I’m trying to point to the fact that more devs and funding does not = effective results.
You and others think the path to LUNC’s success is paying a bunch of devs. Nope. Meanwhile you trash the burn movement, our best partnership, and the communities views (you previously said you didn’t care about burns or the communities views).
What we have in LUNC is a coin traded on most big exchanges, we have stable infrastructure and can work to get the funds as we grow to be able to provide an alternative if needed (TFL paying LUNC’s infrastructure), we have a deflationary coin which is at 1 billion market cap, we have a small but quality team of developers who are close to achieving parity with LUNA, despite their millions and their many developers. We are doing fine. Like you said in an older post,
This is not like a silicon valley start up. Pouring money into developers does not = effective results. We should increase our L1 team organically as we grow and improve our funding capacity (we can now with the 50/50 parameterised split if it passes). Also, it’s not exactly easy to hire a bunch of quality people, given L1 team has been losing members recently. The L1 team is more than capable of handling any pitch to the community about new developers to the team in their next funding pitch for April.
Funding the oracle rewards pool is not throwing money away, it’s providing value to our shareholders (holders of LUNC). Rather than wasting money on unneeded R/D (hiring 20 or 30 devs), we can run fine as we are, add some more as we can, and provide value to the LUNC shareholders.
I disagree, we should fund the chain ourselves by tax/gas, not be looking for outside funding and mystery dapps which don’t exist yet.
This is a needless and arbitrary requirement. The bull run happens when it happens, it may start tomorrow for all you know. The article lists most of those developers are open source which means they contribute to the chain out of their own passion. We don’t need 20-30 full time devs for LUNC any time soon, and we have much better uses for those funds. When LUNC rises in price any reasonable CAP on the community pool will be worth many millions, and we can hire more devs if suitable as needed. The set-up to fund the oracle pool is a mechanism to deliver value to LUNC shareholders over many years.
I believe in different priorities for LUNC than you do. You want to end beneficial partnerships, you want the LUNC price to flash crash, you want to spend all our money on unneeded developers, you think funding the oracle rewards pool is frivolous, you already said you hated burns in another thread and you don’t care about the views of the community. You also like to promote strive and division in the community such as with your Tombstone proposal.
I’m glad to see differently than you.
That proposal passed through governance, so by your definition the whole community are “bad actors”.
No, I had reservations, and said as much at the time. But once the prop passed there wasn’t much to do about it but accept the outcome and try to make the best of it.
That’s because you’re not on Discord. Protip: most of the discussion happens there, not here.
They’re not and it’s not. You’re stubborn as a mule while at the same time ignoring literally every single point I’ve made explaining why whitelisting any group (let alone a CEX) is idiotic.
The burns are pointless. Whitelisting CEXs gives them leverage. It’s a bad trade.
Your argument is flawed because it rests on a flawed premise: that the burns were in any way beneficial to LUNC, apart from generating a bit of hype and FOMO. I’ve already dismantled that previously, but you keep ignoring it and blowing your own horn regardless.
Because I watched the situation unfolding in real time. And later read a multitude of reports from unaffiliated groups who did forensic work on the crash.
Because it turns the chain into a vassal domain of a much stronger participant (Binance). I’d give them the whitelist, but in exchange for about $10,000,000 annually. They don’t even have to pay us, let CZ put together an engineering team of 20+ people and have them help our L1JTF. But giving up the whitelist for pointless burns is retarded. And the fact the L1JTF is pushing this should be grounds for dismissal - they were paid to code, not swing their dicks around playing kingmaker for the chain. If Ed and Tobias had any sense they’d put their foot down and demand massive concessions from Binance in exchange for the whitelist. But they’re afraid to piss off the CEX (and by extension the community), so they pussy out every time push comes to shove. Both of them are good coders, but horrible managers and inept businessmen. Which is why they shouldn’t be trying to steer governance (read the GitHub for some juicy comments about how quickly they caved in to Binance’s demands - the upcoming vote is going to be a mere formality since the validators do whatever the hell the L1JTF demands of them).
We’re all being taken along for the ride, and our decentralized schema completely disregarded.
But you know none of this because you’re so far up your own ass that you’re willingly blind to it.
There’s about 3 additional layers of politicking being played behind the lines.
Our votes are irrelevant. The whitelist will pass because the L1JTF wants it to, and the validators will vote for it. The rest of us can’t do jack shit about it. And most people (yourself included) have no idea how bad this is for the chain, its future, its holders, its general independence, and the basic premise of decentralization that LUNC promised to retail investors.
How many times do I have to drive this through your skull: burns are pointless. Do you understand that? The way to chew through the 7-trillion supply is by enabling one-way swaps, which rest on arbitrate, which itself rests on a successful USTC repeg. No amount of burning will ever come close to that.
Lmao as if that’s some secret. I’ve said as much before, and I’ll say it again: we need to shake out all the whales and bad validators who’re in this just to make a quick buck, and who’ll keep choking the chain and killing its growth until they self-eject. I’m amused this is some kind of revelation to you.
You’re ignoring everything I wrote in my previous reply; parity is just the start. My brother in YHWH, you are incredibly obstinate while possessing only superficial knowledge on a variety of topics that you like to opine on with authority. Open the good book, and read through your own Lord’s teachings - you should cultivate humility, not hubris.
It is. No IT startup got anywhere by staying at 5 devs. We should be scaling aggressively, not petering along with a handful of coders who work part-time. Other chains have hundreds if not thousands of developers - how do you think LUNC will remain competitive when we have a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of their manhours being put into the chain’s revival and upkeep?
The burn is pointless. Our “partnership” with Binance is heavily one-sided and skewed in their favor. The community is mostly comprised of retail investors who aren’t very knowledgeable about crypto, let alone growing a $1B mcap startup into a mult-billion dollar business. You can jerk yourself off to pointless tangents, but it doesn’t change the fact this chain is stalling; all momentum is gone, and we’re about to surrender our independence to win a pointless participation trophy in the form of ceremonial burns by Binance. If you had any common sense or knowledge you’d be saying the same thing, but you don’t, so you’re not. You’re green, Christopher. You’re so green you bleed neon.
Let me put it in terms your brain can grasp: LUNC is a Formula 1 car with a combined team of 5 people (vs. other teams that number in the dozens or even hundreds), with slashed tires, a busted engine, a mangled chassis, lacking fuel and oil, and currently on the way to sell itself for a new paintjob to Daddy Binance (which won’t do anything for all the aforementioned systemic issues). We are anything but doing fine.
Re: your screenshot - that was before I realized the L1 team had no desire to scale up.
Yes it is. New chains scale up just as aggressively as soon as they can. Look how much money the other ecosystems are investing into attracting as many developers as they can afford. Meanwhile you think 5 dudes working part-time are gonna carry us? Lmao!
Yes it does. Try growing an IT company without expand the workforce. Go ahead, try.
Lmao you’re drinking the koolaid hard. It’s trivial finding quality engineers, there’s literally thousands of them on LinkedIn and other sites.
This isn’t about replacing the L1 team, but augmenting their output. And the current devs have made it known they’re not looking to scale up at the speed it should be done. We’ve got 1.5-2 years to fix LUNC and get it into racing shape - if we had a team of 50 right now I’d still give us a low chance of succeeding. I want a $100 LUNC, not a $0.001 like the rest of you.
Wrong on all counts, for all the reasons I wrote about in my previous reply. I’m not gonna rehash them here, but I’ll just say this: you have a flawed outlook, and with people like you LUNC will never reach its full potential.
It’ll be in full swing in ~2 years. If you knew more about crypto you’d understand why.
Other chains incentivize developers through bounties and rewards. We have none of that, because we have no money, and a JTF who loves screwing around with governance but not in any constructive way as leaders ought to. Also, has it not occurred to you that we need USTC repegged? If we had funds available we could hire a team of quants to write a whitepaper or help Duncan. There’s so many things that need doing which go beyond your pointless burns. Your knowledge base is a foot wide and an inch deep, Christopher.
Like what, tossing the money into an incinerator through pointless burns?
The price won’t rise because: (1) no value is being added to the chain; (2) USTC remains unpegged; (3) LUNC’s supply remains hyperinflated; (4) the bear will last another 12-18 months at a minimum; (5) we lack enough developers to remain competitive; (6) there’s glaring security risks in the chain itself that make the rest of the Cosmos ecosystem treat LUNC like a leper; (7) the L1JTF is selling the chain out to Binance for peanuts which will cause pumps-and-dumpps, not organic growth; (8) the validators in the active set vote for their own self-interests instead of doing what’s best for LUNC; (9) AllNodes still hasn’t been torpedoed (and by extension the YouTube “influencer”-validators; (10) Oracle depletion hasn’t been solved, and can’t be solved by tossing gas money into the pool; (11) and by far the most damning, all momentum/hype LUNC had previously has ground down to a halt.
I could go on. Each of those points on its own would be enough to stall the chain’s growth.
Read more, Christopher. Think more. Write and talk less.
Yes, you’re happy with peanuts. I’m not.
Correct. The road to $100 LUNC leads through a forest full of corpses.
Incorrect. If I wanted to cause harm I’d stand aside and cheer at what the rest of you were doing.
On the whitelisting wallets for exchanges: Exchanges use hot and cold wallets to help internal security. Those wallets are still on-chain wallet accounts. That means that they would be contributing not just in the burning of fees (which they have agreed to), and their users contributing to burns by moving coins on and off the exchange, but also every time the exchange move coins between internal wallets for security purposes. Right now, they are most likely minimizing those internal exchanges between wallets, and relying on insurance policies. This is the reason it was asked for (which seems reasonable).
They are on track to achieving technical parity with LUNA v2 by the end of the first quarter. They have delivered successfully v1.0.5 and proposals in vote now to reinstate Binance’s burns. The L1 team has done an excellent job and are a very cost-efficient use of community resources.
how much did it cost and whats the time period since proposal pass to pay them?
How many devs left and were they still paid?
whats the total amount to be paid and what “contractual”/pledge work to be delivered?
The burns are pointless. Whitelisting CEXs gives them leverage. It’s a bad trade.