In traditional finance, a company’s shares can be divided into class A shares and class B shares. This increases price stability and each share is suitable for different objectives of different investors. I propose to translate the concept into our LUNC token. This will lead to greater price stability and a rapid reduction in circulating supply in the short to medium term.
The comparison with actions must not be misleading. Lunc is a cryptocurrency and has nothing to do with the shares of a company. The difference between LUNC A and LUNC B lies in the benefits of holding the former, designed for those who have an interest in investing in LUNC for the long term. Staking LUNC A gives higher returns from staking (paid in LUNC B, USTC Etc.); any further benefits can be proposed, discussed and implemented.
My proposal to provide a total supply for LUNC A unlike LUNC B and LUNC B will continue to be the coin together with USTC to pay network fees. Regarding the purchase of LUNC A I see two possibilities:
- It will be possible to buy Lunc A through Lunc (the future LUNC B) only within the chain to incentivize the movement of capital within the chain and to drastically reduce the circulating supply, much more efficient than the burn in terms of scope and speed of results. Those who see a future in LUNC will be incentivized to exchange their Luncs for LUNC A’s for the greater income they will get from their staking and for the growth prospects of the ecosystem.
- The purchase of Lunc A will be made possible through BTC, ETH, BNB OR STABLECOIN used subsequently to buy LUNC on the market on Binance (as it burns the commissions) and subsequently burn the purchased LUNCs.
Those in charge or the community will eventually choose the option that brings greater benefits.
Since if holding Lunc A and staking them offers higher returns in LUNC B, if Lunc B tends to increase in value Lunc A will also follow MA as those who invest in Lunc A do so because they have a long-term perspective they will not sell at the first downside and the bearish phases will therefore be more contained than the declines that LUNC B will undergo. Introducing a novelty like this will also bring advertising to LUNC and the entire ecosystem, leading in the short term to an increase in volumes and an increase in prices due to both advertising both to big players who want to invest in LUNC A because they are optimistic about the future of the project.
It is out of my remit to evaluate any exchange ratios for LUNC B needed for 1 LUNC A; the proportions will eventually be discussed by those with greater competence. It is also out of my competence to evaluate IF AND HOW this system could be useful on the issue of arbitrage with USTC.
In my ignorance I thought of giving the possibility only with LUNC A to be able to arbitrage in case of exceeding the peg and only with LUNC B to be able to do arbitrage in case of loss of the peg (or on the contrary) and possibly also introduce a arbitrage between LUNC A and LUNC B. I hope that my incompetence and my communication difficulties (I speak through a translator) do not reject a priori an idea that could lead to a solution. Obviously this is just an idea, a concept that will be revisited / improved / completed by those who have the skills and eventually transformed into a useful solution that can contribute to the growth of the value of LUNC and of the entire ecosystem.
My immediate concern as an investor, is that LUNC A would by definition be less volatile, and therefore the overall return on a bullish sentiment would be considerably less than LUNC B, so would investors like myself want to switch, even if the staking reward is higher?
Good idea though, it does provide further options given the individual outlook of the investor, and therefore increasing on chain transactions.
I would likely move some of my investment across.
Check this out: https://classic.prismprotocol.app/
“Prism Protocol allows for the refracting of assets into their principle and yield components to facilitate greater composability and liquidity to users.”
Protocols already exist that let you refract LUNC into its coexisting components, for example yLUNA and pLUNA.
I think your idea is good but you should consider that blockchains and its tokens work differently from corporations and shares. You could build your own protocol that separates LUNC into LUNC A and LUNC B, that would be awesome
The sense of the decomposition is given by the higher income that I hypothesized I would obtain if I delegated Lunc A, I am not able to create a protocol, I have no computer skills, I am not a programmer, but what sense would it have to exist? My idea as it was conceived has nothing to do with joint stock companies, it just steals a concept that already exists to create an incentive that leads people to pay a higher price today in lunc to buy lunc A than in future are more stable than Lunc B and offer higher returns if delegated.
In my experience, sharing tends to add value, but just sharing is not going to do anything without promoting the process. The technical implementation of the chain division itself would probably be difficult, although it would certainly be an innovation (I do not know a similar one on the KRYPTO market).
- I am asking the programmers to speak up as this project must first have their support.
- I am asking investors to speak up, do they see themselves in LUNAC - A investments?
- The opinion of stock exchange managers, will be importent on this too.
Acting in isolation from real needs, without their analysis, will only be a waste of time, and splitting LUNAC into two chains without promotion - fruitless and introducing a certain chaos that will certainly not help us in anything.
Difficult seems a misplaced word to me. Wanting to get Lunc back from the May crash is in no way a simple achievement. Any road you want to take will be complicated and demanding. I agree with you, on the other hand my proposal lacks technical specifications, simply because unfortunately I am not capable of it. On discord I was asked to create the topic, my idea has tickled the imagination, the theory, someone seems to like it. With this topic I just want to tickle the ideas of those who are more competent than me, so that, if useful, they can take what is good from the concept that exists in the reality of joint-stock companies and translate it into crypto if this it is advantageous, if necessary, to modify what is not right without stopping at superficial conclusions. Furthermore, whatever is written here must be seen as extremely malleable, moldable to one’s liking to create the best version of the proposed concept and make it useful for our purpose , if in one way or another it can be implemented. Stopping at LUNC A and LUNC B (among other things the name may be different the concept would not change) or “cryptocurrencies are not actions” is sadly superficial and inconstructive.
@babymonkeymusk - What you wrote - this is the power of DAO management and the power of a community that wants to be together. We have a huge advantage over other blockchain. For these reasons only. Thank you my friend
anyway, I have never written about splitting LUNC into two chains (which is appreciated if deemed useful), I have written about splitting LUNC into only two different products, created for two different purposes, meant for two different investors. Both would expose to the growth of the chain.
For example, if Lunc B increased in value, Lunc A would also benefit as I hypothesized it could offer more staking income than the LUNC B equivalent wagered. In addition, we need to consider IF AND HOW HYPOTHETICALLY we could use LUNC A and LUNC B to improve arbitrage with USTC. But this should be evaluated by someone capable of doing it.
I tried to share with as many people as possible the link of the proposal so that it is commented by someone with the required skills, help me if you like so that it is seen by those who can evaluate whether the proposed concepts can be useful or not to the cause. Thanks for reading and your comment. Thanks friend.
I LUNC bananas do not endorse this proposal
thank you for having exposed the weaknesses and strengths of the proposal, thanks to your feedback you have given your contribution to leave things as they are exactly now. inconclusive comment.