Burn the community pool down to a min of 750 mill LUNC at the end of each month

Governance & Proposals
1

In recognition of both Text proposal 11243 and Parameter change proposal 11242 passing, as well as LUNC’s integration into Station repo, I propose that the LUNC community now consider all marketing strategies to increase on chain volume. An increase in on chain volume will not only serve to rapidly bootstrap both the oracle rewards and community pools, but it could also further improve chain security by tying-up more coins in staking, as we work towards an even higher Nakamato coefficient.

To that end, this agora asks the community to consider the idea of burning 250 mill LUNC from the community pool, as a Community spend proposal. Until further notice, this agora also suggests that we continue to put forward community spend proposal burns on a monthly basis, always ensuring we leave a minimum of 750 mill LUNC in the community pool.

At the time of writing this agora (11/01/23) the community pool currently stands at 1.042 Bill LUNC, that is why 250 mill LUNC has been put forward as a burn amount. Should this agora attract interest, one of the topics of conversation should be on the amount we burn and at what frequency.

As alluded to above, this proposal is a promotional tool to attract volume, by posting a voted on, predictable, large burn, with the aim of stimulating buy pressure. To that end, this agora suggests that the community pool moves to a, “just in time” funding model, whereby we only ever leave a max of 750 mill LUNC in it at the end of the month, as an emergency fund. The caveat to maintaining this as a marketing strategy is that should any development team put forward an agora post, or proposal before the monthly Community pool spend proposal for the burn is considered, that proposal would take funding precedence.

Positives of a monthly burn of Community pool down to a min of 750 mill LUNC

• May stimulate buying pressure for LUNC, leading to more volume
• Permanently burns the coins, no questions about how the funds are allocated
• Makes development teams consider their costs more stringently (LUNA 2.0 is a good example of how community pool funding for project funding does also have drawbacks)
• It would be the first official, on chain, mass community burn. Essentially, it is a similar model to what Binance and Validators are doing; burning a portion of their fees/commission
• If successful, could potentially be used as evidence to reduce/remove the burn tax. Of course, this is not preferable, as the burn tax has massive support from the community, but this is a different way of burning
• Could create FOMO like events once a month (depending on the size of the burn being voted on), keeping LUNC’s name in the public domain
• Using community pool spend proposals to fund projects can obviously lead to coin sell pressure (again, this is something LUNA 2.0 experienced recently)
• Makes more sense as a promotional tool now we have increased gas fees, removed seigniorage and restructured the way gas fees are allocated.
• Luncblaze.com have also now have included a feature that allows the user to allocate a portion of their burn to either the community or oracle reward pools. As such, having a community pool burn once a month may encourage burners to allocate more of their burn to the community pool
• This does not have to be a permanent burning strategy and can simply be stopped by not posting a community pool spend proposal for any given month
• It’s a more agile approach to burning down the supply
• We can try to get the community pool burn listed on luncpenguins.com to try and spin up competition, striving to make community pool burns the number one burner of coins
• Bigger burns have coincided with a higher price of LUNC previously

Negatives of a monthly burn of Community pool down to a min of 750 mill LUNC

• May not increase volume, or only increase volume off chain. To that end, it may not act as promotional tool to rapidly bootstrap the oracle rewards and community pools
• May leave us short of funding in the short term, if a few community pool spend proposals are put forward at the beginning of the month
• May not attract as much interest from developers if funds are not clearly available
• May have little impact on anything because of market sentiment
• May lead to many scam community pool spend proposals being put forward, or a lot of the community putting up community pool spend proposals to burn coins, not understanding the need to have coins available in the community pool.

Burning coins from the community pool is not an ideal strategy. However, the purpose of putting forward this agora now is because there are not many protocols or modules that are clearly being developed on LUNC. Quite a few of our NFT projects and development teams have amassed a large wallet of coins because of the lower price of LUNC, so if the price were to increase, those holdings would be worth more. LUNC’s integration into Station repo is obviously another huge milestone for the chain, which in itself could lead to increased on chain volume, given that we still have reasonably cheap gas fees. In short, this feels like a good time to implement this strategy as a promotional tool for LUNC

The whole 250 mill LUNC will be sent to terra1sk06e3dyexuq4shw77y3dsv480xv42mq73anxu (minus gas fees and tax)

1 Like
2

Interesting idea, I’m more favouring the idea of a cap on the community pool (exact cap able to be changed by parameter vote), where any excess is automatically redirected to the burn wallet. The approx 1 billion LUNC in the CP is worth 174k USD. This will only increase as LUNC rises in price. I think running lean with focusing on burns is better than having excess in the pool with motivation for unnecessary spend requests. I think an automated system works better to deliver consistent daily burns, as while periodic burns do deliver hype, they require continual governance which is a source of potential division and arguments which can nullify the effectiveness to the price. I can imagine it, “We need the 250M to burn”, “No we should save it for the devs”, argued every month. If we have learned from the past governance problems with the minting and the chaos it caused, we need good solutions which avoid re-governance.

1 Like
3

Really like this suggestion aswell. I think the point is, we recognise the need to hold coins within the community pool but holding too many does nothing to stimulate buy pressure. Burning coins has been the most popular retail attraction thus far, so let’s do more to support burning

1 Like
4

The $ value amount is too low , its not even enough to fund the devs at this point. Isn’t the money in the CP out of circulation anyway (like in a cold wallet)?

IMO if the price of LUNC goes high enough or if the CP is sufficiently filled to be able to fund the devs and new projects for lets say 6 months ahead then that would not be a bad idea and would also help the overall goal to reduce the total supply but at this point it wouldn’t make sense , also in order to get anything out of the CP you would need to go thru governance.

Also i dont think 250m burn would create a FOMO event, Binance burned billions and there was not much FOMO going on.

Terra 2.0 has a MK of ~200m and a CP of ~400m, we have a MK of ~1b and a cp of ~200k …

Overall not a bad idea but not a good timing IMO.

1 Like
5

My thinking is that we have awarded the L1 team 900 mill LUNC, which is to be released over a few months (sensible move, avoided high sell pressure). If we burn some of the community pool now and drum up hype around that being, “an additional, large burn”, we can create enough buy pressure to push up the price of the coin. That means the L1 team would have to sell less coins to meet their stipulated funding requirements, which hopefully means the 900 mill coins will last a bit longer. That and the gas fee increase, and pool funding restructuring have only just happened. My gut says that should start to rapidly increase the size of the community pool aswell

2 Likes
6

This idea makes no sense figuratively and literally.
Community pool holds funds for development. It is the only unified source we have.
It’s burning money. Money we don’t have.
Use the money to actually develop something that through organical interactions burns the supply down.

7

The thing is CP pool might be getting emptied each time we fill it up. If you didnt listen to the leaked recording from the TR meeting, maybe you should. Its on HCC Youtube. Ot looks like they had plans to treat the CP as a gravy train and suck it up each time there is cash in it. Keeping it trimmed down to minimum would ensure we dont waste anything and no-one comes up with spending props just to claim that money.

2 Likes
8

I do follow HCC and did watch it but what does a minimum mean? This time we needed 150k, what if next time we need 500k? Every spend proposal has to be passed thru governance, its the community and validator’s responsibility to research and vote. What if the CP was empty or didnt have enough $ to fund the L1 team, were we going to ask them to wait a few months until our CP fills up hopefully so they can start working? I do agree on a cap and i do think that the excess should be burned to benefit the chain as a whole but we need a reasonable minimum amount and 200-300k is just not enough IMO.

If you are referring to what happened Rebel station, the proposal was not discussed enough and at that time the chain crashed, people were fudded that TFL will stop support and we didnt have a choice but to move to RS and the proposal was passed right away. HCC actually had a lot of questions and was one of the few who voted NO if im not mistaking. Same with the 50/50 min proposal that costed 50% of the binance burns, i see people blaming the guy who put it up (I’d like to think in his head he wanted to help) but he is not the one who passed it.

2 Likes
9

There are 1 Bn coins in the pool. It’s the price of LUNC that is keeping the value of the community pool low. Funding development through community pool grants usually creates more sell pressure than it does buy pressure, which further devalues the holdings we have. Burns are an easy sell to retail, they normally stimulate buy pressure and we have yet to see a legitimate protocol or module come forward and request funds. Increasing the gas fees also makes our chain less appealing to build on in the short term. In my opinion, Station being made available to us is the perfect opportunity to launch a community pool burn as a promotional tool to try to stimulate positive price action

1 Like
10

Consider that anyone who wants to offer something substantial is doing research into this chain.
They will see that there’s no funds to support it and community instead chooses to burn the little funds they have.

This is attractive? Makes sense?