Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+

[Abdul_Quddos]

i Want to sharea interesting idea to create a Dapp with an escrow dispute system for lunch payments that would be usable globally. Adding features like staking and an affiliation program for purchasing products on Amazon with LUNC could potentially increase the adoption of the app and attract more users.

However, it’s important to do thorough research and consider various factors such as market demand, legal and regulatory requirements, and competition before pursuing the idea. It would also be beneficial to conduct surveys or gather feedback from potential users to understand their needs and preferences.

name of app , Terra Pay or Pay Terra are both creative and catchy names,

[wagnerdalcin]

@JESUSisLORD

answered your question before, you asked again, I answered again. You are an opposer, and a minting supporter and an anti-taxxer. I’m just calling it how it is

Oh no you didn’t… Goodall did it in technical terms.

But here is the answer for the average joe: they might be technically different, but they have the same function - divert a portion of the tax to fund the chain … like I said, pure semantics!

Why do you think that the other proposal to solve Binance burns, in case the ante-handler prop didn’t pass governance, was creating another wallet dedicated to receive the voluntary burns with reward policy set to zero?!?

That’s what @arunadaybasu is trying to explain to you all along… it’s not “secret minting”

[JESUSisLORD]

@wagnerdalcin

Oh no you didn’t… Goodall did it in technical terms.

But here is the answer for the average joe: they might be technically different, but they have the same function - divert a portion of the tax to fund the chain … like I said, pure semantics!

Nope WAGNER. They aren’t the same at all. They diverted more than part of the burn tax which you well know, they diverted voluntary burns too and MINTED THEM, which is why we lost 50% of Binance burns. As I said, your a dirty MINTER running cover for the MINTING FIASCO AND DISASTER. Shameful.

@wagnerdalcin

Why do you think that the other proposal to solve Binance burns, in case the ante-handler prop didn’t pass governance, was creating another wallet dedicated to receive the voluntary burns with reward policy set to zero?!?

Because Binance was worried seniorage would be turned back on and minting started again? As I said we should remove seniorage from the code so people can never be tempted to turn it back on. I’ve written that down as something to accomplish.

@wagnerdalcin

That’s what @arunadaybasu is trying to explain to you all along… it’s not “secret minting”

There is no minting.

@Abdul_Quddos

i Want to sharea interesting idea to create a Dapp with an escrow dispute system for lunch payments that would be usable globally. Adding features like staking and an affiliation program for purchasing products on Amazon with LUNC could potentially increase the adoption of the app and attract more users.

However, it’s important to do thorough research and consider various factors such as market demand, legal and regulatory requirements, and competition before pursuing the idea. It would also be beneficial to conduct surveys or gather feedback from potential users to understand their needs and preferences.

name of app , Terra Pay or Pay Terra are both creative and catchy names

Hi Abdul thank you for the idea but you might want to make your own thread about it for discussion, either here in governance or in the general section, as this thread is about discussing my Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+.

[wagnerdalcin]

@JESUSisLORD

Nope WAGNER. They aren’t the same at all. They diverted more than part of the burn tax which you well know, they diverted voluntary burns too and MINTED THEM, which is why we lost 50% of Binance burns. As I said, your a dirty MINTER running cover for the MINTING FIASCO AND DISASTER. Shameful.

Jesus Christ!!! You really don’t get what I’m saying and seems you have a very, very hard time thinking abstractly.

@JESUSisLORD

Because Binance was worried seniorage would be turned back on and minting started again? As I said we should remove seniorage from the code so people can never be tempted to turn it back on. I’ve written that down as something to accomplish.

I suggest you go back, read all the proposals you have been copying-and-pasting on your “vision plan”, reread all Ed Kim proposals regarding the ante-handler, burn wallet, and Binance, and figure it out for yourself. I’m done with your lack of intelligence.

God bless you and that your “vision plan”live up to your expectations.

[JESUSisLORD]

@wagnerdalcin

I suggest you go back, read all the proposals you have been copying-and-pasting on your “vision plan”, reread all Ed Kim proposals regarding the ante-handler, burn wallet, and Binance, and figure it out for yourself. I’m done with your lack of intelligence.

You made a bad comparison that the current tax split is akin to minting by seniorage. This was a false comparison and you were clearly wrong and misleading people, also being an advocate for MINTING. It’s not my fault you messed up and I called you out for it. Stop trying to condone MINTING, and tell the truth, and things will go better.

@wagnerdalcin

God bless you and that your “vision plan”live up to your expectations.

Thank you and I hope it will go well, Lord willing.

[godoal]

Reporting back:

The Total and Circulation Supplies both decrease:
Query Date/Time :: Total Supply :: Circulating Supply
Thu May 4 14:41:26 BST 2023 :: 6,853,909,720,649 :: 6,852,989,779,517
Thu May 4 15:11:27 BST 2023 :: 6,853,892,642,577 :: 6,852,972,557,181
Thu May 4 15:41:28 BST 2023 :: 6,853,891,498,395 :: 6,852,971,289,647
…
Fri May 5 12:55:00 BST 2023 :: 6,853,855,090,737 :: 6,852,929,812,503
Fri May 5 13:25:00 BST 2023 :: 6,853,854,353,894 :: 6,852,928,977,001
Fri May 5 13:55:01 BST 2023 :: 6,853,853,905,207 :: 6,852,928,453,325
Fri May 5 14:25:01 BST 2023 :: 6,853,853,409,337 :: 6,852,927,885,517

(NOTE: Halfway through the night I suspect TR started their maintenance and switched over to public FCD/LCD so the snapshot was interrupted but did resume this morning. We only need the first/last readings anyway so it wasn’t a big issue…)
From the above:
Circulating Supply = 6,852,927,885,517 - 6,852,989,779,517 = - 61,894,000
That’s 61M reduction in 24h.

That means the following statement is WRONG since our chain ALREADY IS on a deflationary trajectory. @JESUSisLORD thanks for the probe to look into this further…I would still be with the notion our CS is far from the TS ceiling.

@godoal

The circulating supply is increasing (via mint) on a daily basis because of the chain 2% (ish) inflation.

[JESUSisLORD]

At this stage from early indications so far from reaching out to the L1 Team, if this governance proposal should pass, they indicated that due to their workload they likely would not be able to implement the deposit exemption function until after parity (end of May), so this leaves some time from June onwards as the most suitable time to proceed with my plan for vote.

As the deposit exemption to exchange function is a core incentive in this plan I want to get right, this proposal will likely not go up for vote until at least June.

During this month of May I will continue to share the proposal, it will be open for discussion. I hope validators may consider it over this time. As I said before, I didn’t want to rush this, and wanted time for validators and the community to consider my plan and hopefully gain enough support to pass a vote.

This is an update regarding the status of my proposal and the timing for proceeding to vote. I will make a clear announcement here and on Twitter @ForTheCross_CH when I have decided to put the plan up to a vote. Thank you. Christopher.

[pivo4et]

I draw your attention to the PEPE coin.This is a coin with no intrinsic value.
But this coin is deflationary.And its capitalization at the moment is more than a billion dollars.Two months ago, this coin did not yet exist.
Now you understand how important burning is for increasing the capitalization and value of the coin?

[JESUSisLORD]

@pivo4et

I draw your attention to the PEPE coin.

JESUSisLORD

[Seany22]

Better do something fast. We are bleeding out to the likes of Pepe.

A tax increase would bring new/old money back.

We need a burn drive. Some positive news and movement people selling hard for deflation coins.

Why? Because it’s simple enough to understand.

Money in. Coin shrink. More money out.

[Seany22]

I disagree to be honest. I can see a future but it’s going to be hard and the risk/reward is putting investors off.

Right now we have nothing but overly complicated props that the average investors can’t be bothered to wait for.

I would like to see an emergency burn initiative at these extremely low levels before we

A. Run out of cash

B. Get too many apps on chain.

For me I say we go balls deep with a minimum 30 days 2.5% burn the supply initiative. Gather the data and at see how many influencers and new investors join. Whitelisting any apps/coins/CEXs which do there own style of burning.

Keep the props simple and burns high. We can then review this and many many others. Reducing the burns after enough capital has flow in. Which it will.

Right now we are a meme coin. Our power is burning. When repeg happens and the AI we might shake the meme coin and become something. But until that happens…we need to use the one tool the average Joe wants to see.

[arunadaybasu]

You are correlating two absolutely different phenomenon.

But there is no issue even if you raise the burn tax.

If that’s what you guys wanna do, then you are free to do so.

It would still require a substantial task force working on development to develop the chain further than where it is currently.

Unless Pepe innovates, it will come back to where it was. You can see what is happening with Shib. It’s not increasing anymore. The dev team is gone. It’s stuck now.

[Seany22]

Put up a prop to raise the burn tax?

I’m all in favour but the level and time to be implemented would have to be heavily discussed.

As would what is whitelisted.

[JESUSisLORD]

@Seany22

Put up a prop to raise the burn tax?

I’m all in favour but the level and time to be implemented would have to be heavily discussed.

As would what is whitelisted

Did you read the OP? It’s all explained there. My prop is to raise the burn tax. It’s a carefully prepared proposal with many features and a lot of time and effort put into it. Just throwing up a random tax raise prop can actually hinder my proposals chance to pass and be accepted by the community. Also just throwing up a prop to burn at 2.5% when 1.2% was never tested properly and without a proper plan to convince exchanges is not productive IMO.

For the people who support burning it’s important to rally around the best proposal (mine IMO) to return to the 1.2% burn tax (total 1.5% on-chain), and push for off-chain implementation.

Here’s the details of my prop from the OP.

@JESUSisLORD

The governance steps of the proposal are:

1. Text signalling proposal for the Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+, with all relevant details according to the flowchart, authorising L1 Team involvement, and putting up for vote for community approval of the plan.

If this proposal passes, the next 3 proposals follow shortly after simultaneously or as quickly as possible:

2. Parameter change to adjust on-chain tax to 1.5%.

3. Parameter change to adjust the tax split to 80/20% (from 90/10%). This leaves a 1.2% burn tax (6.67x our burn tax rate) and 0.3% to the community pool (15x our current funding rate).

4. Text proposal to exempt dapps from on-chain tax, as proposed by dfunk on agora.

After these proposals are passed, the plan is live, and the push for off-chain burn tax adoption begins. This is the official beginning of the plan. At this point the community will proceed to request the exchanges to adopt the 1.2% burn tax off-chain. By our united community effort we can achieve great things. The community will apply consistent pressure and attention to this issue to all major exchanges.

[JESUSisLORD]

Then here is the rest of the proposal. Sharing from the OP again to remind about the plan I am proposing here.

@JESUSisLORD

The next step is the L1 Team will reach out to the top 10 to 20 exchanges by volume, approaching them with our offer, our incentives, and our question. The exact list will be finalised with the L1 Team. They will also answer any exchange technical questions regarding implementation, and assist wherever possible.

The offer is that we ask the exchange to implement the 1.2% burn tax on their exchange buys and sells. They can arrange to send the LUNC to the burn wallet immediately, daily or weekly. The incentives is that we offer internal wallet whitelisting from the 1.5% on-chain tax, and we offer deposits to their exchange being exempt from on-chain tax. This allows exchanges to make internal transfers of LUNC for security purposes exempt from tax (Binance already has this in place), and also encourages deposits to their exchange. LUNC withdrawals from exchanges would be taxed at the on-chain 1.5% tax rate. We offer these two incentives, and then ask our question.

The question asked to each exchange is: “Would you agree to apply the 1.2% burn tax on LUNC buys and sells if other exchanges do the same?” The answer each exchange gives is kept private on a list the L1 Team keeps confidential, with no leaking.

This period is the negotiation period, where exchanges are contacted, the offer, incentives and question is put forward. the L1 Team (I will assist wherever possible) will communicate with exchanges and negotiate to reach a consensus.

Once we have reached a consensus of major exchanges, we negotiate privately for them to launch simultaneously on an agreed upon date. A simultaneous launch means that no individual exchange is stepping out alone to apply the tax. This allows us to acheive exchange support while alieviating any concerns they may have about people leaving their exchange (a concern CZ raised earlier). The incentive of deposits exempted from on-chain tax to their exchange also helps with this. The exchanges are given time to prepare any necessary measures, and once we have their agreement, and they are ready, a public announcement is made to the community of the launch of the 1.2% LUNC burn tax on exchanges buys/sells.

5. At this point the final governance proposal/s will be made to whitelist all applicable exchange wallets before the launch date.

At the launch date, the 1.2% burn tax is applied across major exchanges, so on every LUNC buy and sell, a 1.2% tax is applied which is burned either immediately, daily or weekly.

As a result of this our burn rate will skyrocket. We will likely see huge price interest and volume even at the announcement. This will only help us burn even faster. At the implementation by major exchanges, my Vision Plan is a success, and the rapid burning of the LUNC supply begins, and LUNC’s pathway to $1+ is secured.

[crunch1777]

I wait for you to submit the proposal I hope this is soon. Thank you

[chit_chat]

Hi Chris

Great thinking, the community is sleeping, I really hope they wake up, every word you wrote makes perfect sense, this proposal should be spread amongst all validators and shared. We have wasted so much time and money on useless things and proposals, another issue we face is few validators holding too much voting power and they do nothing for community, worst part we don’t even know they support the burn or not. Yet people choose to stay ignorant, your words are like the guiding light to the community, I have also read 1%max proposal, its very similar to your’s not exact but your purpose and view is aligned, I seriously hope both of you come together and work for this common goal.
Cheers
Sunny

[JESUSisLORD]

@chit_chat

I have also read 1%max proposal, its very similar to your’s not exact but your purpose and view is aligned, I seriously hope both of you come together and work for this common goal.

Hi thank you, I shared my plan with him earlier directly. He believes in his own plan, which I do not agree with, due to its focus on using blacklisting exchanges to gain unanimous adoption. I don’t believe that is a good idea that will be accepted by them, and my plan focuses on positive encouragement and persuasion and incentives to agree, not blacklisting. I believe my plan is much better and will continue to be pushing for it. It will go up for vote soon, but likely from sometime in June onwards when the L1 Team will have time to assist (subject to my plan passing governance).

[chit_chat]

Hi, yes I would agree with you here, I have written to him to reconsider this, lets see how he thinks, but do you think, both of your views are aligned? After reading both proposals I have a feeling, its almost similar outcome, I mean both of you can sit and work together, I dont know, considering the community wants 0% commission validators, and all nodes and TCB keeping 14 and 10% for nothing, would make it next to impossible to get your props anywhere, that guy just blindly votes no to everything and hardly does anything for community

[JESUSisLORD]

@chit_chat

Hi, yes I would agree with you here, I have written to him to reconsider this, lets see how he thinks, but do you think, both of your views are aligned? After reading both proposals I have a feeling, its almost similar outcome, I mean both of you can sit and work together

Yes I have discussed it with him privately and he believes in his own plan. I strongly disagree with his method of blacklisting, and going for 0.2% is a failed tax and is much too low. We should go for the 1.2% burn tax off-chain like I propose. Our proposals are very different, and there is little common ground. Thank you.