AnteHandler "burn tax" split

Man that is utter BS. Ex Terran one Dev is 150k per year with waaaaay more experience working with go/rust and experience on LUNC and LUNA.

If the L1 team push for more money given how unprofessional they’re acting on twitter I’d be advocating we find someone else. They are already being paid top dollar!

3 Likes

Multisig please.

If we raise the rate to 0.6% and still split the burn tax, we will still be burning more than we are now while still replenishing the Community Pool

1 Like

This is satire right? Do you remember the TR prop distribution followed by Neblio shilling. Can see TR members are more vocal on discord, presumably you’ve come to the conclusion that TR aren’t squat without TC community support.

Also still waiting for your report no report that was supposed to exonerate TR and show who the “true bad actors were”. Can only presume it didn’t show what you were hoping.

But if we raise the rate to 0.6% and burn all of that wouldn’t that be a better outcome?

Besides the Community Pool is being replenished by gas fees so what’s the rush? The burn tax split can come at a later date which could be initially set to 100/0 (burn/CP) and controlled by governance which can be increased/decreased later if needed. Why go for a sub-optimal solution now when a problem doesn’t exist?

2 Likes

Just for purposes of clarity, the proposal should have stated:

  • Stops re-minting “manual burns” and instantly ships 50% of “burn tax” proceeds to the CommunityPool.

Only reason we have enough money in CP for Q2 is because its already in there. Had the community pool been at zero when gas fees went up we would’nt have enough funds for Q2. Also we need probably about 10x to 20x more funds monthly in the community we are currently getting. Takes money to make money. CP used to be used to fund L2 and marketing for the chain in the past. Living pay check to pay check for a billion dollar chain isnt sustainable. Hard cap on CP is t needed because the community can put up a prop to burn funds at any time in the CP. Which i wouldnt do till we are a fully functional blockchain again. TFL is still paying the electric bill for our chain. We need to cover that. Chain needs L2 development we need to help with that like other chains do. Our chain needs L1 work which we need to pay for. Our chain needs marketing which we need to pay for. All of those things are 1000X more important than any burn right now. We need to really think about this from a business perspective like all other chains do. Or we will fail. Simple as that.

1 Like

Important to who? Who is our target audience? Let me break this down:

  • 13% of the LUNC volume is being staked, which means 87% is in exchanges - indicating that 87% of the target audience are traders/speculators who react to news and price action.
  • Online polling of Lunc holders also indicate that they are most interested in burning (with about 76% indicating they want more burns)

I agree but for that you need to understand your target audience better - both in terms of demographics and psychographics. The narrative that people have bought into ever since de-pegging is “burn” and I believe there is a great risk to business if burns are reduced.

As far as your others pointers go:

TFL and LFG also hold a lot of LUNC assets in their custody. If they can hand it over to the community we will have more than enough to cover costs.

We already have fully functioning L2 dapps on chain - right from DEXes to Liquid Staking to Yield Farming. There is nothing stopping a dapp from raising funds via token issuance as I believe one is already doing.

I believe that’s L1TF for which funding is already secured.

We are the most mentioned chain on the cosmos on social media. The marketing narrative is driven by burns. Would you like to jeopardise this?

I think this burn tax split should be really parked for now and re-evaluated around April 01, 2023. This would also ensure that it is implemented properly in a way which can be controlled by governance, while also gathering more effective business strategies for capital deployment that are better researched and have measurable KPI success parameters defined.

2 Likes

No joke, the joke is someone thinking we need to pay the L1 Devs 250k a year each.

I did but decided against releasing it as I’d be dragging a lot more names into the fray and would have needed to post screenshots of private conversations between individuals. I don’t think it would’ve served any good.

I can confirm there was a legitimate risk of the infra support being shutoff, I’ve seen the dms so nothing illegal happened, no misappropriation of funds or whatever PSX was insinuating. Just an utterly stupid distribution of pay. I assume PSX has gone quiet because he’s actually opened himself up to defamation with his “report”.

I personally agree with Zaradar and Mostafa but I was part of the inactive set so had no say/vote on the matter.
But bar them two everybody else on the active set voted in favour of the distribution that went ahead. Including some of the people that left TR and called scam. They actually voted FOR this distribution.

The reasoning I was told was that as they had been all working together for free for months so had agreed to split the FIRST payment evenly among the active/full time members. And after that they were moving towards a weighted pay model.

Saying that I don’t agree with how the pay was distributed. I also think the that pay should have been more transparent from the outset given it was from community funds. I was also both angered and disappointed by some of what I heard in the TH and I can only apologise to the community on behalf of those individuals. TR will deliver on everything promised in the proposal but I still think we should be done much better and acted when there was outcry from the community.

2 Likes

Totally agree with dfunk.

Also don’t forget:
1.) More we burn (Lunc and Ustc) higher the price will be and more funds $ wise will be in CP.
2) Parity with Luna will allow many projects on that chain to run on Lunc chain.
3) It is fair to expect pick up in transactions and volume after parity. So CP will fill faster.

As said. Lets wait with this 50/50 split for a bit. No need to rush.

3 Likes

You would say that, you’re part of TR. FYI nobody really believes much that you say anymore tbh so good luck passing anymore spend props.

Personally didn’t really care how the money was distributed but it’s clear as day that TR over egged the infra threat, TR members took shots at the community (see Echcelon, Clan and Rex) then subsequently decided to swan off to Neblio and now you’re trying to sweet talk your way back. Why not do what Rex said and find work elsewhere in cosmos?

Re the report that’s another trust me bro isn’t it? Quite frankly everything from TR is a trust me bro.

Personally I’d rather given Zaradar/L1 or notional 250k year than give TR or anyone currently associated with TR 1c more and I’m fully aware that the vast majority agree with me, you’ve lost the validators too (I know I speak to them regularly, fyi supporting the Neblio post was a dumb move)

You’re bringing no value while ripping into the people who do bring value, please do us all a favour and just find another chain on cosmos to torture.

4 Likes

So you speak to top 10 validators all the time on such topics.
Why did those vals vote yes?

1 Like

The rise to 0.6% and split would be in case the gas fees is not sufficient. I am not proposing we split the burn tax now, but it should be considered if in the long run we need funding ,especially for L2 projects . In all honesty, I do see the 0.6% being a necessity if we whitelist Binance and other CEX wallets anyway, if the burn is to be sustained.

1 Like

Agreed. Dfunk makes a good point. :point_up_2:

We can reassess at a later date.

Shalom! :pray:

2 Likes

No to this proposal! We already increased gas fees and Ed said we wouldn’t do any more minting!

4 Likes

We wouldn’t even be here if it wasn’t for TR you’re quick to forget the months of work done for free when nobody else was taking charge.

There’s no trust me bro, even LUNCDAO admitted during the week that TFL we’re considering turning off the infra. If you want me to make everything public screenshots and all that’s one road we can go and I’d want legal indemnity to do it. But it is the nuclear option and will I promise you do more damage than good, and not to TR but to members of the L1 team and TFL.

And you’re wrong, as much as people hate that I’m associated with TR they don’t hate me. I’ve ALWAYS been honest and ALWAYS operated with the best interests of the whole LUNC ecosystem.

And I have said nothing against the L1 team bar if they’re looking for 250k per annum per man that’s nuts. They’ve literally put 1month down. IMO if they want more money I’d lower their base salary and give performance related bonuses. They do the work on time, and correctly without fighting on twitter then they can access extra pay. They act unprofessionally then they lose the bonus.

2 Likes

Correct me if i am wrong but the burn tax split was supposed to stop the minting completely and just send the seigniorage directly to the CP instead of re minting and then sending.

Now that the seigniorage is set to 0 there is not going to be any changes to the burn tax amount?

The 50/50 thing was present at the time of proposing this change (At this moment it is set to 100/0).

This proposal is just changing the way the taxes are allocated IF we decide to re enable the seigniorage?

This.
This is something that should be pursued, especially when it comes to LUNC.
We need the keys to Shuttle, Wormhole and BSC

1 Like

I don’t understand this, why would screencaps about infra discussions damage L1 & TFL? :man_shrugging:

That’s true, you’ve always been upfront with everyone. :+1:

Milestone bonuses do sound like a good idea, and a great incentive… :thinking:

Shalom! :pray:

I thought there would be a parameter fix where if we need to touch the burn tax there would just be split :a percentage to CP and a percentage to burn wallet without re-minting. Please explain what this statement you made mean.

1 Like