Before accusing me of spreading FUD, please read proposal 10983 that was accepted and then cancelled due to Binance’s suspension of token burning! By the way, this proposal is an exact replica of 10983, so it’s not FUD, it’s almost 100% likely.
3 Likes
Binance got whitelisted from tax burdens. They no longer care about it.
1 Like
As everyone knows about LUNC in the past, its value increased because investors expected the price of the coin to increase if it was repeg with USTC. The real problem with LUNC is not the large supply. But it’s the ability to compete. In fact, a coin with unlimited supply can cost more if it is competitive. Its competitiveness is due to the fact that the coin can be used in a variety of ways. Burning coins isn’t exactly the right way to solve the problem. But it will make the coin price increase rapidly but in the long run it will not be good. We have seen each other burn many times, it does not cause the price of coins to increase to the point that investors are satisfied. But when a terraport comes in Investors began to see hope begin to thrive, although it faltered at the very beginning. So I see that investors are looking for competitiveness. And I expect the community to help make the right decisions that reflect the current and future situation.
I support this proposal.
Although I have significant disagreements with Rabbi on various things, this is absolutely correct.
Even though this affects me too (since I have proposals which will go up for voting next) you don’t need to do this 50-50 split and feed these vermins any further.
Let them work for their money.
Let them come up with plans and processes which will make money for the CP and OP.
Otherwise from next quarter, we shouldn’t even pay them if their plan doesn’t include a way in which the CP is funded.
In my country there is an old proverb which translates in English to:
You don’t make a hole
in the plate you are eating from
These people are doing just that. Do not feed them any further if it is not required.
Let them pay back all the money to the CP first. All the money that they have taken extra for work that they never did and work that have forcefully included in Quarter 2 work.
And what even came out of the $150,000 we invested in Rebel Station?
They are working for AllNodes now and taking money from us ($40,000 more to be passed in the next few days). That’s what came out of our $150,000 USD.
The truth is always bitter.
If you wanna keep feeding them, you can directly transfer cash to them. They will be happier actually that they don’t need to deal with us tracking their spends.
1 Like
Here’s the link to the decision by Binance exchange: Binance to Make Changes to the Burning of Terra Classic (LUNC) Trading Fees | Binance Support
Here is proposal 10983, an exact replica of this proposal:
3 Likes
Read my answer again…
After that, read this post from Ed Kim:
And then go read lathe latest upgrades to the chain and realize how things are working.
Have a nice Sunday!
He has already linked the last change that Binance has done.
This is the last update on this matter. Not Ed’s comment here.
Now I don’t know whether there has been any developments after this.
1 Like
Just linked the Ed agora post so he could see what the ante handler tax split is on a technical level and that it doesn’t affect voluntary burns.
Regarding your comment, there are no words if they plan to bump it to 100% again. It seems to me thats not the plan right now. CZ might be waiting for further developments - USTC repeg plan, for example.
1 Like
This is the first time splitting the ante handler what are you talking about
Nope, this topic was discussed before…
1 Like
Ante handler split was created without any governance proposal.
It was included with 3568 burntax because it was adapted from ust to lunc, burntax is burntax shouldnt be reMINTED CP or otherwise.
GAS FEES fills CP just increase it or change the split but leave burntax alone.
1 Like
Thanks for the reply! 