Burn Lunc proposal project

This proposal suggestion is to implement a new burn mechanism beside the already existing ones.
It is about our staking rewards that should be partially burned. (Only a percentage of them not exceeding 50%).
This will help to burn billions more lunc without hurting anyone neither lunc’s ecosystem.

In fact we all see an enormous supply of luncs, re-mints, and high staking apy. What is another fact is that a lot of people in the community do not want to take in their pockets, they let others do it. Some do not want to make sacrifices.

On terra station the staking apy is about 13-15%, whaz can be done is to take a maximum of 6.5 to 7.5% of these rewards to burn them.

Go into detail on how this proposal will help tackle or resolve the issue.
Lay out the action items in clear terms with defined time lines

Staking rewards are the incentive to lock up your funds for 21 days.

If you remove the incentive to burn a handful of lunc - it serves little purpose to stake.

Take a look at the Oracle pool - the amount you see there is all that’s left.
Now compare the OP pool with the total supply.

Splitting a penny in half will not do much if you are comparing a penny to a dollar.

1 Like

Hi there, thanks for your time,

The staking rewards won’t be removed, locked period of 21 days won’t change at all, nothing about that will change but only the burn of a percentage of the staking rewards.

Even 21 days locket I would agree to double that locked staking period to 42 days

I understand staking time will not be reduced. That wasn’t even a question.

The question is - how would you incentivize stakers to lock their LUNC up if you want to take 50% of the incentive away, without giving anything substantial in return.

1 Like

By the fact of participating in reducing the supply which is what they want. Community searches to reduce the supply, to have a lunc value growing, for that it has to burn so reducing staking rewards by burning some is another way of doing, still have an apy of almost 7 percent which is still good, accumulating mesures to reduce supply will lead to a better valued lunc that will lead to a more attractive coin which means more buyers and so more staking and on with more burning ect…
the fact is no one will burn trillions or even billions of lunc. Finding mesures like that and accumulate all will lead to 100+ billions of lunc burned more in a year. That’s only a continuation of burn process less say for longterm

Put your proposal into numbers.
I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but OP is at some 270b? Perhaps less.

From OP validators and stakers get paid and rewarded.

So okay, you tell validators to find other venues of funding and stakers will have to accept less rewards.
In turn you burn about 135 billions of supply.

Out of a total of 6.8 trillions…
Which is 6800 billions.

Now, I am bad at math, but it does look like this deal has only negatives.
The supply reduction is miniscule - so the price per token does not get attractive increase and validators will be receiving less to run their nodes. On top - staking is not so profitable anymore. With that goes away another incentive to own or buy the coin.

1 Like

Proposal 11330

Community needs to focus on bringing value to the chain, not on burning.

I see you have already put this on chain for voting with no prior discussion and no code. Please avoid spamming governance with rubbish.


correct me if i am wrong on this,the 135b burn only for 2023 correct?after that,the pool is about emty,so what is the burn amount?why do you think we need to stake if we can get only about 3.5% apy?

Already suggested that few times. It’s like (we) stakers are pandas… No one even tries to do something that would hurt us :slight_smile:

30% tax on staking (lunc and stables included) rewards for first year, 20% for second year and problem with supply might get sorted out.

Im gonna read all of your messages people to give answer on my thinking but please if it’s to show only agressivity refer yourselves to the rules of this forum!

Jeff the supply is in trillion not billions, the percentage to burn on terra rewards is half so 6.5 percent which leaves us stakers with 6.5 to 7 percent apy which is still good. So lot 3.5 percent.

I will give more details on it later and in fact I was maybe a bit too fast by opening a deposit proposal on terra station no matter it can be redone in a few weeks which leaves time for discussions

See you later

Instead of burning the prize, it is necessary to think about how we can increase the Oracle prize pool.we need to increase staking revenues.
Don’t you want us to stake?


I see your point of view. What I see is that in 10 years, just by burn half rewards and burn taxes will lead (at writing time) to 1500 billion (1.5 trillion) lunc burned which means a total supply down to 5.3 trillion. Adding to this the other mesures taken to burn (if bigger burn taxes passes for example or any other validated proposals) yes it doesn’t seem to be a lot but all accumulated means a lot, still better than 77 years actually.

Now I say 50 percent for a good equity. But can be more or less depends.

If I calculate right: actually the price of lunc will never pass 0.001.
Just the burn taxe will reduce total supply of 870 billion in 10 years BUT you have to add about 300 billion of rewards back in the chain for taking, means in 10 years 570 billion burned with taxes.

With a half rewards burned for example, 570 billion plus 600 billion in 10 years = 1,17 trillion in 10 years.

Lowering faster the supply leads to a growth of the value, better value with less supply means a potential price in 10 years hitting 0.006 instead of a potential 0.001 with only burn taxes.

You understand that this is not taking consideration about any other things that can lead to a massive pump exceptionally like a tweet of Elon musk for dogecoin for example :joy:
I’m only talking about numbers of potential growth of that token based on supply and price.

So even if officially it can hit that way 0.006, depending on events it could go higher or lower like we l’adresse know.

Now. Better have 10 million luncs in your portfolio making 6.5 percent apy rewards and at term hitting 0.006 or keeping your 15.2 percent apy and never pass a value of 0.001 for your 10 million coins?

Example in this scenario: 10 million luncs at 0.00017 you pay it 1700 usd, at 0.001 it’s worth 10.000 usd. With your 13.2 percent apy for 10 years = total luncs: 34 million = 34 000 usd in 10 years in that case

Second scenario: 10 million luncs bought at 1709 usd. At 0.006 it’s worth 60.000 usd plus your 6.5 percent rewards in 10 years 8.7 millions more total of 18.7 million luncs = 112 200 usd in 10 years in that case.

Here is the real reason why it is more interesting to sacrifice half rewards it’s because longterm you have much more gains.

And this is why educated investors would be more interesting by a lunc staking at 6.5 apy reward with 6.5 burned rewards. And so it will attract more staking « clients «

Only problem is the circulating supply, it will have to be reduced progressively as well but think it will people buy and sell all the time so don’t think it would be a problem but if it becomes one, changes in the mechanisms would be possible to adapte

Unless we can repeg USTC and restructure this chain - the 270b or so is all we have in OP.

I mean, the chain is on life support and gimmicky burns that take away investors money aren’t going to help nor will they pass governance.


Your math is assuming lots of stuff. Where is this 1.5T lunc coming from? Are you aware of the size of the oracle pool. Look ive been 100% staked since staking reopened and I am a staunch believer in this community, I am an ardent supporter of projects. Even I would unstake if apy was 6%… it offers no incentive to staking. We need to incentivize staking not discourage it in favor of tiny burns


Like written above we know approximately the amount of luncs burned and what can be burned with these taxes, the other amount is the half staking rewards of staking nothing else :man_shrugging: we don’t talk about taking elsewhere. Now again the numbers are the numbers better have luncs in portfolio for a value of 0.006 with 6.5 apy than 13.2 apy and 0.001 value, it’s the calculation of potential growth and value depending on supply and price.

Anyway if repeg is accepted. Massive lunc burn will happen, to push ust price up right? Lunc price will be affected but not sure in that case for the way it will go.

Thoughts on that repeg?

It seems like you dont understand how the oracle rewards pool works. The rewards pool gets smaller and smaller every day (it will be drained in a little over a year). You don’t get the same rewards constantly (The more people stake - less %apr) , if no new mechanism is created to fund the OP in a little over a year, there will be NO staking rewards anyway so that 10 year plan is invalid.

1 Like

Burning the Oracle Pool is a terrible idea.
The blockchain depends on validators, and validators depend on stakers.
If you remove the incentive to stake the blockchain might run the risk to collapse.

Is stakers want to burn their rewards, they can do it on their own. And the reason why they don’t do it, it’s because staking is a form of investment after all. Reducing the incentive to invest will bring people to invest somewhere else.
The Oracle Pool must be refilled, not burnt.


Thanks to all respectful that took time for answering,

I understand you, my thoughts were to simply sacrifice a part of rewards to grow the burning rate. In that idea the longterm lunc price should go up faster because of supply decreasing more.

My example was: better have on 10 years 10million luncs staked at 6.5 apy at term lunc value to 0.006


10M luncs at a stake apy 13.2 percent but a value at term of 0.001.

My thought is that on longterm even if you make more apy like 13 to 15 percent, as long as supply doesn’t decrease that much, the value of your portfolio would end up much lower than if you half your apy to decrease faster and more the supply.

Exchanges and pools own luncs so everyone would have been glad with that.

And still the staking would be interesting and more for people who understands the goal to achieve on longterm.

That was my opinion on it being a longterm investor. Also I calculated the potential growth and value in function of the supply and price and really seems that with only burn taxes and the 13.2 apy on staking, on longterm we end up with 3 to 4 times less capital.

Asking people to burn themselves their rewards ok it’s an option but most won’t do that sacrifice and let others do it and then take their profits on others sacrifices and efforts. It is unfair that is why implementing a mechanism like a burn taxe is best option for equity

Ok so a question, there is 5.9 trillion in circulation and that includes staking amount (900 billion) why do the other 5 trillion not in staking? People keep talking about incentive that we ha e to stake ok but then what is there such a low amount of lunc staked compared to supply?