Efficient Implementation of Tax&Burn according to #3568

There is a lot of voices around regarding that that proposal #3568 is lagged to be implemented, that #3568 could hurt DApp etc. Even notorious FatManTerra recently twitted that all LUNA Classic holders are dim-witted.
Obviously, that all is not true, the issue is simple - text-based proposal #3568 is just complex enough to be implemented with fast commit-and-run approach? And a lot of work should be done to implement in correct and efficient way/

Here you could find research paper “Implementing Efficient Tax&Burn Mechanism”:
From this paper you could understand what kind of battle is going on around #3568 implementation,

  • what are pros&cons of initial @Vegas proposal for simple implementation of #3568,
  • which is current QuickWin version of implementation of #3568,
  • what could be done after to force all major CEX to implement of-chain taxation.

For any questions please join our Discord Server:
Luna Classic Community

Wirth best regards,
Luna Classic Community


Well done,but the implementation proposals from the exchanges will be successful?
Ηow we will force them to implement it?

1 Like


Just for now “Kind Voice” is still not issued. We are waiting initial on-chian implementation of #3568, as to use it as reference in letter.

1 Like

I just contacted binance


Dear sir @akisan , would please explain it that burning according to this proposal is toxic? I think you have some great logic and expectations. I’m eagerly waiting to hear.


Sole voices of individuals means nothing, as for managers of Binance, as for BitHumb and others.
Only collective actions and letters on behalf of Community could be heard; especially if mechanism is in place to over-tax CEX, which would ignore kind voices.

Notorious… hahaha…

We implement another offer independently and guaranteed

Ok, it’s easy to say stuff, but backing up statments with facts is hard.

One could argue that it’s this place that is toxic for allowing poters to randomly insult people and call them names.

Once you start with the name calling, all that does is it shows you just lost the argument and have nothing further to add to the debate.

It would appear so.

what about stabilizing USTC, Even if is at 0.0001 cents, turn it stable, it automatically gains utility, and mirror classic can be big again… people will look to the classic system, developers will get back to classic, reverse cycle

any date final for 1.2% burning tax for LUNC

This will take time. Now lets fix LUNC. We can not move from 1 to 3023 at one step.

Nope. Maybe after they will restart chain. (Prop 4095) This will increase transactions, block building and volume * 0,012 * 0,5 * 0.7 would be great to let burn.

Referred paper “Implementation of 3568” is actually the paper from @ek826, which I was used during complex research.