We must working with ustc. No one will buy or hold another’s tokens.
2 Likes
Do you really think so? What about the BNB?
You do not want to buy it. Fine. I understand your concern. Yes, switching over to new coin does not get well immediately with the fear of what will happen if CUST also face similar issue.
All I am saying is don’t shut this idea down blindly. Just give it a thought with your eyes and ears open. This proposal has far more benefits that you could imagine. Until you gain confidence you don’t have to buy it. Instead, you will get free CUST just for staking LUNC. You can sell CUST and buy back LUNC from DEX. Use it to burn down supply just with free money or you can keep the LUNC for staking or send it to other community members as gifts or donate it to the needy. You can do whatever you want with that free money. Even if no one buys CUST at DEX, you can leave it aside in your Terra Station. Eventually there will be a time when everyone will want to have CUST because it is completely decentralized and no one has ownership to it.
All I am requesting is give it a open thought and don’t be blinded just because a group of people are saying ‘USTC’. I am not against pegging USTC, but as mentioned in my prop want to move away from USTC because of the risks that I had shared. It doesn’t mean that I am against repegging USTC. If that does, I will be a happy member too. We will have multiple asset in the ecosystem pegged to 1$. I support all 3 coins (USTC, USTN, CUST) and more to come if it is adequately supported to defend peg.
To be honest, I would say the current situation is blessing in disguise (just from the perspective of CUST coming into existence and not LUNC holders sufferings because of the significant loss of price). Reason being LUNC holders will receive good rewards when the total supply and supply in ORD increases. This will encourage LUNC staking and remove more LUNC coins out of circulation.
Secondly, there will not be more supply at the initial situation as you think. For e.g. you need 5$ of LUNC to be spent to mint 1CUST. This is because of the 3$ will go to VCF for controlling volatility, 1$ will go to peg the CUST to $ value and the last 1$ will be burnt and minted to CUST. In short, if you are to have 1M CUST as total supply we need ~29B LUNC at current price. As LUNC price increase healthily, we will get more CUST minted. The more CUST in ecosystem, more projects will be onboarded.
I prepared some data that I was able to collect in a short time. This, to some extent, illustrates the value of this proposal
Cumulative trading fees on LUNC Spot and Margin trading pairs from 2022-09-21 00:00:00 to 2022-10-22 23:59:59 (UTC):
12,433,648,374.42 LUNC (or 3,760,718.56 USDT equivalent)
Average daily burn (in millions) - 0,2% tax - 43,44444444 LUNC => CUST proposal
Average daily burn (in millions) - 0,2% tax - 43,44444444 LUNC => CUST proposal
COMMUNITY POOL- 4,344444444 / RESERVE POOL - 4,344444444 / ORACLE REVARDS POOL - 8,688888888 / AFT POOL 26,066666664
The current combustion efficiency /impact on supply reduction => the price
At the behest of the “LUNC army”, Binance just threw $1.8 million dollars into the burn address.
This will have a 0.09% impact on supply reduction
1 Like
To add to the above point, the entire supply sent to AFT pool (26,066666664) will not be created as CUST. 3/5th of the amount (15,639999998) goes to volatile control funds, 1/5th of the amount goes to LCF (5,213333333) to balance the 1$ peg and the other 1/5th gets burnt and minted to CUST ($834133.3332 at current price of $0.00016 / LUNC). CUST total supply at this juncture is 834133.3332.
Note: I am yet to check the calculation, but adding the points based on the above comment
1 Like
The idea is great. But we still need to work in parallel to reduce the money supply. I propose to introduce a 5% tax on LUNC sales. This will burn the asset up to $3 million per day. For sale only.
Who would buy something that is not backed by anything?
1 Like
Thanks buddy. If you are looking at increasing the burn tax to 5%, I don’t the chain will survive as projects will not show interest. Lets say we have big project comping in and they have to transfer 1M equivalent LUNC onchain. Do you know what happens? They will end up losing $12,000 for single transaction if it is 1.2% tax, whereas if it is 0.2% they will lose only $2.000. If you put a 5% tax on this they have to pay $50,000 as tax. Would you imagine losing out this money just for a transaction/ if traders sell LUNC. No one will touch LUNC then and the chain will eventually not survive. It may seem small for but large for big volume investors / traders.
Think you are missing few points here on burn which I would like to clarify.
- CUST mint happens only after burning LUNC
- LCF will burn LUNC if there is a price pump beyond 1.2X of the last 3 day LOWS
- When market swap gets enabled LUNC is completely burnt and users get CUST.
- The point which most of them fails to understand - Funds moved to AFT pool is literally out of circulation. For e.g. when you stake LUNC, it goes out of circulation and users have an option to withdraw it which gets released after 21 days of unbonding. However, in this scenario funds sent to AFT pool is completely locked, which means coins out of circulation. The only possibility that these coins come out to circulation is when this project fails completely and for compensating users loss i.e. conceptual flaws leading to continuous de-pegging and out of reserve funds / funds in ORD. In short, funds sent to AFT pool is not going to come out in circulation except for compensation members due to project failure, which in my perspective is never going to happen as I have placed adequate measures in defending peg in extreme conditions and also placed measures for reserve funds. Conceptually, if I have missed out somewhere I would request the members to identify the issue and that is the very same reason this text prop is put up for discussion.
1 Like
Did you even read the prop or did you directly jumped into the comments after reading the title “Community Terra”. Had you did, it clearly explains that it is 100% backed in LCF + 300% in VCF to control volatility. In addition, had created a pool for 10% of 0.2% tax in reserves. Would be happy if you can give a patient read on this matter and share a constructive comment that actually makes sense. I am always open for it.
2 Likes
My early thoughts were to burn USTC after compensating USTC holders, however, based on USTC holders concern they can keep both USTC and compensated LUNC. Only request to USTC holders is that not to raise concerns on compensation when subsequent AFTs come into ecosystem as it would be very difficult to compensate every time when we bring in new AFT.
1 Like
Maybe you go create your dapp for this without lunc/ustc fund
Goodluck
If I create a dapp seperately for this, it will be business motive for self profits. My objective is different. It is creating decentralised money so that everyone in the ecosystem is benefited. If you see a flaw in the logic or working mechanism, feel free to raise the issue. Open to work on the concerns
But why binance will consider to send burn amount to vcf ? Cz is doing to support lunc not cust. Please reply
Valid question. Binance will not support CUST and fund for VCF. All i meant was if anybody want to burn LUNC, we can use VCF instead of burn address. If binance sees value in decentralization, then they may show support else we will lose their burn volume. That is a Risk that we have if we are to go with CUST.
1 Like
Very nice proposal, a bit complicated to check all numbers just by reading, I am available (or is anybody available?) to set up a simulation algorithm (in XLS or C) to check the validity of this, we should also include the shocks to waterproof potential flaws.
Can you please create a presentation that can be understood by the majority and then call a virtual meeting?
2 Likes
Glad to hear that you like the idea. And thank you for stepping forward to set up a simulation to check the validity. Happy to work with you on it and open to suggestions to identify on flaws / risks, if any and have it rectified. Have shared a quick summary on Q13 with flow chart. Let me know if you prefer a presentation to have it simplified.
1 Like
I suggest, for the beginning to speed up the understanding, using something like Libre Office (for compatibility vs many different systems) or a Google document shared between the group, if we see that we need something more sophisticated we can move to a different way of doing it, at least we have something clearer in our mind by then.
We would need a group of 3/4 people for a brainstorming session, you included.
We would need to define how we will proceed.
Now we are two, you with your suggestion and me helping with a simulation to check the validity, but we need some more people.
Is anybody available?
1 Like
Thanks MDP, we are 2 now. Have requested 3 more people and await their response. Lets hear from the open community members too if they want to pitch in to support.
@everyone, please feel free to send a direct message if you are interested. will connect for brainstorming session.
@Storm - In fact, I see the only solution to confirm the initial calculations. We should rely in this simulation on an authority who is involved in our community in addition to his experience, I am of course referring to Edward Kim. He did not speak on this issue. Ask Him on Our behalf, it will certainly be a constructive answer.