@Vegas this proposal might need an update
This proposal is the first step on the rigth way to save lunc⌠Yes the code version is being done as we speak. But if you read the proposal (and this is not for you but more on top) ,we ask for the officials to support the burning fee official ,so exchanges itself can do itâŚso yes we canât change codes in the exchanges ,but yes we can suggest ,and if the suggestion comes from the top they will see that the community whantâs this ,so they will do it⌠together we can do it
2 Likes
Sound power is irrelevant. The Lunc community lacks a team of developers and project leaders. Without them, it is an empty chain. Validators keep the chain going and nothing more or less
I appreciate the sentiment but the above needs to be completed otherwise the chain leads to a path of destruction
We need parameter changes.
We need % that goes to devs , to validators and to get burn.
7 Likes
100% agree
Letâs not lose hope.
Perhaps when the quorum is reached for this proposal, maybe adopted by the exchanges under the pressure of community.
Together Stronger, Keep Voting 
2 Likes
Hello @Vegas You are doing a great job but like i said on my twitter (and you should check it out & first youtube video ) we need a ââ PARAMETER CHANGE PROPOSAL ââ so the changeâs can instantly be implemented. Im working on it and hopefully today i will post about it and we need all vote for it so it startâs working! See ya
3 Likes
Friend letâs be realistic 1.2 percent is way too much.
0.005 tax is enough for us if the proposal for 1.2 is not accepted, just make an offer with 0.005 percent, well, with a maximum of 0.01,0.02, I will be grateful if you see this and react
4 Likes
I think we are looking a little from a wrong angle, a tax dosenât mean necessarily a smaller volume. A smaller supply will mean an increase in price, the bulk of transaction are made by bots so the value in terms of volume may be reduced (by a smaller supply) but the price will keep increasing and so more money are to be made thus keeping the memento providing that people will trade responsibly and not think only to themselves. At current rate, we will burn through the exces supply in 2.5 months, the question that we should ponder is then what?. We should create a strategy so the Luna C ecosystem will thrive because this is the only way to keep the value long term. If someone thinks Luna will rise and sell his/her position and never look back, well this will not happen.
2 Likes
Do it 
2 Likes
I can suggest you create a vote to add 0.005 tax on all transactions at the terra station, I think everyone will vote (no one votes for 1.2 percent because itâs too much)!!
3 Likes
Can you stop spamming the same point over and over? Cheers.
1 Like
What is your channel?
When I click on the link it does not take me ton the proposal to vote. It only takes me to the terra station dashboard. Is anyone else experiencing this? Is the voting on this proposal over?
2 Likes
you have to go to terra classic station
1 Like
make sure you choose the right chain⌠âclassicâ
2 Likes
Go go Luna Inu
The taxes cannot be cexăMaybe it should add Lunc Gas Fee ďźinto account % devsădappsăvalidatorsăburnă
1 Like
i agree
1 Like
Thereâs something I donât understand. What matters isnât the circulating supply but the market cap.
Iâm pretty sure we can agree that most people that will use LUNC are people that were here before the crash. (at least short term)
So adding a tax burn mechanism will basically take another 1.2% of their money every time thereâs a transaction with LUNC?
To bring the supply down to 10 billion would cost the community what? 100s of Millions in transaction?
Or people just hope that new uninformed users will come in and help with the burn?
Then again why would new users come when Luna isnât what it used to be and most projects donât work anymore?
As an average investor I donât see why I would keep using an ecosystem that would be more expensive when there are other alternatives.
3 Likes