Enhancing Community Funding: The Case for Increasing the Ante Handler TA Split to 50/50

When the concept of the ante handler transaction tax (TA) was proposed and created, the original intention was to have a 50/50 split, with 50% of the funds directed to the community pool and 50% burned. This split was carefully calculated and considered to support the development and growth of the blockchain community. However, the current split stands at 10/90, with 10% going to the community pool and 90% being burned. In this article, we will explore the reasons why it is necessary to reevaluate and potentially increase the ante handler TA split to 50/50 to better align with the original vision and address the evolving needs of the community.

The existing 10/90 split has served as a deflationary mechanism through token burning, reducing the token supply and increasing their value. While this has been effective in some ways, it also has limitations. Burning tokens permanently reduces the overall token supply, which may impact liquidity and utility in the long run. Moreover, relying solely on token burning may not provide a sustainable funding mechanism to support the needs of the community and drive future development efforts.

Increasing the ante handler TA split to 50/50 can bring several benefits to the community and the blockchain ecosystem. First and foremost, it would significantly boost the funding available for the community pool. A 50% allocation to the community pool would provide a substantial and predictable funding stream that can be utilized to support a wide range of community-driven initiatives. These initiatives could include funding for ongoing development efforts, fostering innovation, organizing community events, and supporting community members’ proposals. The increased funding can also help attract more developers, users, and projects to the ecosystem, creating a more vibrant and dynamic community.

Moreover, the increased funding from a 50/50 split can support future Layer 1 (L1) development efforts. L1 is the foundational layer of a blockchain, and continuous development and improvements are necessary to ensure scalability, security, and functionality. With more funding available, L1 development efforts can be accelerated, leading to faster updates, upgrades, and optimizations. This, in turn, can attract more projects and users to the blockchain, driving its adoption and growth.

Another crucial aspect is the potential to allocate a significant portion of the increased funding to onboarding Layer 2 (L2) solutions. Layer 2 solutions are gaining popularity due to their scalability and cost-effective transactions for decentralized applications (dApps). However, onboarding dApps to L2 often requires additional resources and support, including funding. By allocating 50% of the TA to the community pool, a substantial portion can be earmarked for supporting L2 onboarding initiatives. This can incentivize developers to build and deploy their dApps on L2, leading to a more diverse and active dApp ecosystem.

Furthermore, increasing the ante handler TA split to 50/50 can improve the predictability and stability of community funding. With a fixed 50% allocation to the community pool, the funding stream becomes more consistent and reliable. This allows for better planning and budgeting of community initiatives, ensuring that there is a steady source of funds to support ongoing projects and activities. Predictable funding can also help build trust and confidence within the community, as stakeholders can rely on a stable funding mechanism for their initiatives.

Lastly, increasing the ante handler TA split to 50/50 is a reflection of community-driven governance and decision-making. Blockchain communities are often decentralized, with various stakeholders having a voice in shaping the ecosystem’s future. By increasing the funding to the community pool, it empowers the community to have more and to be equally fair to all party’s.

Disclaimer: By Voting yes on this proposal you are agreeing to ONLY raise the ante handler split to 50/50 and leave the burn tax at the current rate to 0.2%.


Matts Market


No keep it same or max 80 burn to 20 percent community pool we should just focus on increasing on chain volume more burns more for community pool


Hi. I know you don’t mean it badly, but it’s important to realize who the typical Luna Classic “customer” is. When we know our “customer”, we also know his needs. I think there is still a very high number of people who:

  1. They insist that the total supply be reduced (massive burning)
  2. They insist on increasing utility

(or some combination of the two)

Burntax is a double-edged sword. By increasing it, popularity increases and total supply decreases. As it falls, popularity decreases and we burn less. And if the popularity drops even more, then we really have a serious problem.

Neither type of fanaticism is good. Maximum burning at the expense of building is not good, and maximum utility at the expense of the idea of burning and reducing total supply is not good either.

Let’s not forget the main reason why we are where we are:
The May 2022 disaster resulted in the MASSIVE minting of LUNA coins and thus our problem was - INFLATION. I think we really have to solve this, because the social FAITH IN LUNC is built on the idea of reducing total supply. Although it may be a bit “petty-bourgeois” for some, it would be a shame to give it up.

My personal opinion is that DEFLATION is more than utilities to me. I’m not saying Community Pool support is bad. Not at all. We have to develop activities to support the Community Pool and I am in favor of the maximum possible financing of the development. BUT - Let’s not forget who our customer is and what our customer wants.

I consider the current situation regarding the Burn Tax setting to be optimal and it seems very counterproductive for us to open this topic AGAIN. Proposals to increase the burn tax on transactions are as tiresome to me as proposals to reduce the burn tax.

I know you want the best for this blockchain. I believe and I know it.

What do I suggest? Let’s keep the current setup for transaction tax and look for new ways and new places where we can collect taxes.

Think about how the state does it. It offers people the opportunity to do something that is fun, addictive and even harmful (alcohol, cigarettes, gambling) and levies a massively high tax on it. If the state needs to increase revenue for the state treasury, then probably the worst option is to increase taxes on medicine, business, income tax or food. On the contrary, a socially very smart option (even if it is often unpopular) is to raise taxes on things that harm people and society and then invest these funds in things that are beneficial to society.

This way of thinking led me to the idea of “Instant undelegate with burn tax”, which you probably remember. I am not sure about the correctness or whether it is possible to implement it. And I don’t want to advertise that proposal in this place. I just want to point out that I was starting from the assumption that we will offer people something they demand (and is potentially harmful to society) such as “instant undelegate”, but let’s collect a very high tax on it and distribute the funds obtained in this way to: 1. Coin burning 2. Community Pool, 3. Oracle Pool 4. Small reward for validators. Simply put, to meet the needs of society and promote further development. To do it in a way that satisfies all parties.

A burntax of 1.2% satisfied people who strongly support the idea of burning coins. Subsequently, however, opinions came to the fore from people who prefer the idea of “utility building” (whatever that means…). Therefore, the burn tax was reduced to 0.2%. And then came re-minting. And then disabling re-minting. And then unsuccessful proposals to increase the burn tax. The never ending story… Almost a year has passed and what is the result? We reduced the total supply, but not by much = coin burners are not completely satisfied and would like to increase the burn tax. But what about utilities? I’d rather shut up…

So much for my personal opinion, but I really wish you all the best and keep thinking about how to help the LUNC community. But always think of all (or as many) actors as possible: retail investors, whales, validators, developers… We have a long way to go.

Good luck and I’ll keep following you :slight_smile:


Up the txn fees ~5x
Split it 80/20

We be swimming.

1 Like

This proposal is not to increase the burn tax. It is to increase the split between the community pool and burn wallet.


Having funding for L2 work will not only attract more dapps coming to our blockchain but will increase the burns significantly.


I agree with this proposal, we need to update the Anti Handler TA Split as market conditions have changed since it was last updated. Also we ensure the community gets the proper funds to fund future projects that will bring all of the characteristics most mention:

Funds for L1 Maintenance and Development

And much more…

We can’t rely on burning and Binance, as we appreciate their support and efforts with our blockchain those shouldn’t be the only 2 things we rely on. Also we need to move away from community funds and start self funding our projects as this will be our key to success.

1 Like

There is enough grifting as is. We are about to spend 120k on 3 people. 2 devs and 1 paper pusher. There is not enough of budget discipline in the community for this. It will all go to waste. So far we have spent in the region of 300K USD that have not produced any results. Also stay away from the burn tax. You want more cash in the CP? Then increase the gross tax. Tobias is no more. Ideas straight out of his book need to disappear with him.



The CP is about to be hit for $125,000 to fund Steve’s skeleton crew and TGF salaries.

We don’t need to be tossing more community money in there for TGF’s other nonsense.

:-1: :-1: :-1: :-1: :-1: :-1: :-1: :-1: :-1:



Thanks for the support as always!


Just leave burn at .2 and put community pool at .1 but also we do have issue with grifters right now

This is not his idea. Demonmonkey presented this to Ed to present to Binance which assisted with us keeping the burns from them. The original proposal was supposed to be 50/50. By the way are you still writing all of Vegas Morphs props?


This idea didnt come from Tobias. Upping gas is good but doesnt fill the CP with what we need

1 Like

Great PR.

But I think all this unstable decision doesn’t help cex and I think dex, because they keep needing to do upgrade, alt trading,… (Correct me if am wrong)

Apart from that, splitting the 0.2% equally so we can pay both L1 and L2 dev is an awesome idea!

1 Like

How many times are we going to try to change this, how many more times is the community going to have to vote on the same thing.
Gut_Daddy will vote NO on this


That is exactly what this prop does with the 50/50 split. You are splitting .2 in half lol. So .1% in CP and .1% to burn wallet.

1 Like

I fully agree with this proposal to increase the ante handler division to 50/50, and leave the burn tax at the current rate to 0.2%. In fact, this is something that should have been done a long time ago.
We cannot aim for utility and not create mechanisms that allow us to develop new dapps, support new projects and developers, without moving towards a substantial and continuous increase in community pool funds.

Except that it should be safeguarded later and as a way to enhance the attractiveness of new developers on the chain, a whitelisted criterion is established for these new dapps that are funded by from the community pool, but that in return 10% of the profits of these utilities are reverted to the community pool until it covers the 100% amount funded, then passing to between 5% and 2%. Being 5% if the developer just builds a dapp, but could be reduced until 2% if the same developer or entity builds more than one dapp/utility on chain, and progressively reducing to a minimum of 2%, depending on quality and/or quantity built on-chain.
1 dapp = 5% distribution of profits for lifetime community pool
2 dapps= 4% " " "
3 dapps= 3% " " "
4 or more dapps= 2% " "

For these developers/dapps, who distribute a % of their profits to the pool community, regardless of whether they were initially funded or not by the community pool, technical support should be provided by our L1 and L2 teams whenever necessary, as well as access to other services that are considered relevant and that in a certain way are attractive from the point of view of supporting the operation of on-chain services, being perceived the distribution of a % of the profits to the community pool as access to a set of services made available by the blockchain.

Best regards
Let’s keep building :mechanical_arm: :brain: :hammer_and_wrench:


Has nothing to do with the CEXs. They dont have to change anything. The burn tax of .2% isnt changing. Just the way its split. That only affects our chain.


Then this is great.

Funding devs are very important and will burn more when we get more potentially utility!


I am supporting 50/50 split we need more fund for CP thanks

1 Like