The last pump was the result of everyone seeing the same illusion.
Things are so different now.
Applying pressure in the name of CEX negotiations is not a good idea.
You should take a deep breath in the deep forest and jump into the lake to cool off.
You should not easily rely on others.
thank you.
Ridiculous. The 1.2% burn tax was not an illusion. It was a good simple plan to burn the supply which was wrongly assassinated after 3 weeks on-chain. People believed in the hope of burning the LUNC supply, which is the ONLY way we can reach $1+ and the prior ATH of $119.
The replacement, 0.2% tax and utility burn was a deception, has done nothing, just poor burns, poor volume, little utility, investors fleeing and LUNC continually crashing, see the chart. The results speak for themselves.
No, pushing for the 1.2% burn tax off-chain is a great idea, and my plan is a good and achievable plan to reach the goal. Our current situation is not good. We need change.
Your advice is bad, and so is your opinion. I will continue to advocate for my proposal, which will be going up for vote in June where the community will decide.
You donât go back to 119.
Not with the same community and the same token.
Previous ATHâs of ancestor tokens and bullruns of the past donât dictate anything.
Come down from the average dumb money retail investors viewpoint.
1.2% tax was voted in and out by the community. Spin your version of good and bad as you will, Christopher.
And people did have hopium and fomo. Itâs natural. It happens with all s*it coins out there. Shib, Pepe, BabyDoge and all permutations of Doge.
They are goals to surpass Tonu. Especially since LUNC suffered a hyperinflationary death spiral and here we are trying to recover the coin.
Iâm spinning nothing Tonu. The 1.2% tax led to the hype of burning the supply and recovering the chain, and LUNC pumped to $0.0006 largely due to this hope. Anti-taxxers complained and misled the community to reduce the tax, promising more volumes and burns and utility. They were the architects of its demise giving false promises which did not come to pass, and the community wrongly voted for it. The community has also made similarly disastrous mistakes before starting with the 1.2% removal and 10% mint, and the 50% mint proposal.
Look what we got Tonu? See the chart. The reduction of the 1.2% tax was an utter failure. We have low burns, low volume, little utility, investors fleeing, crashing prices continually. We need change.
Of course YOU criticise my belief in my plan and in LUNCâs future, yes even surpassing its all time high. We can achieve it if we have a credible plan to burn the supply. If we can convince exchanges to accept the 1.2% burn tax, we can return to and exceed the ATH. Thatâs a good goal Tonu. Thatâs nothing to be ashamed about.
My suggestion is to highlight the dapps exemption stuff. You have to put in bold that " on-chain dapp smart contracts are exempted from on-chain tax " cause this is the main argument that can be used against your proposal and there are more chance to pass.
This is a spin.
The important part that happened during that time was staking re-introduction.
That already contributed to fleeting utility.
Burn hype was around, but got climaxed when Ed wrote the article.
Since volume was dropping, community was easily swayed into reducing tax, but truth be told - tax had nothing to do with the volume.
It was viral hype and fomo of bag of 100 000x.
You arenât re-creating it now with doing this thing 9 months later.
And you still canât understand how you need to adapt and offer something meaningful. You are only creating short term price inflation with burns.
Nobody is hyped for 5 years. Burn tax is that 5 year minimum plan.
Your proposal is better; honey is better than vinegar! Also, blacklisting could create negative repercussions that havenât been imagined yet.
we are there because of the people and that during all these months nothing has been done
for me currently Lunc has no utility
Iâm not trying to troll your proposal because Iâm a believer in $1 LUNC. However, itâs unlikely that parity will be achieved⊠Whatâs your plan B
Maybe 2.4%? 
Thank you for the suggestion I will make that prominent in future promotion of my plan on Twitter etc. I cannot re-edit the OP.
I disagree, the 1.2% burn tax was instrumental in that major rise, due to as you said, the burn hype, viral hype and fomo. Staking was a factor, but only about returning functionality to the chain, this wasnât a huge driving factor for speculation and investors, the burns were.
I disagree again, for the reasons already stated.
If we secure the 1.2% off-chain on major exchanges as this plan proposes, the hype will be much more than what was ever there during the early days of LUNCâs recovery, because we will have concrete actions to match, having billions of LUNC burned per day will be a massive meme-like trigger which investors will pour into LUNC and the price and volumes will skyrocket.
My plan is something very meaningful and beneficial for LUNC, which you cannot seem to understand or wilfully choose not to. Your statement on âshort term price inflationâ is absolutely wrong. My plan is a sustainably method to achieve $1+ and returning to and surpassing LUNCâs ATH of $119. People will become used to the 1.2%, and as the volumes and price increase the supply can be burned very rapidly.
I disagree, if you knew the LUNC supply was going to be almost all burned up in ONLY 5 YEARS, this would be an amazing hype and investment for people. Even having our small market cap of 617M with a supply of 10B LUNC, this brings our price to $0.0617. LUNC going from $0.00009 to 6.17 cents is a 685x return. Investors expecting those kinds of returns over only 5 years is AMAZING. This is just an example. The burn rate could burn quicker than 5 years, depending on the meme-level LUNC will obtain with the volumes and price rise due to the hype of recovery, if we secure the 1.2% burn tax off-chain on major exchanges.
My plan is going up for vote regardless in June. If they are unable to complete parity within May, Iâll have to consider what to do, but my plan is going up in June.
No I support the 1.2% burn tax off-chain and 1.5% on-chain as I detail in my proposal.
See this quote from the OP about why the 1.2%
If I may ask, Do you have a better idea to reduce the supply?
Building utility without controlling supply is a dangerous path-there will be no rise in price despite all the efforts.
Exactly. It was hype.
Buy the rumour, sell the news.
You donât quite grasp that offering largely the same thing that was already voted out once, does not generate the same hype nor interest again
The trick is not new.
ttps://classic-agora.terra.money/t/repeg-idea-flexible-delegation-to-reduce-ustc-supply/51641/7
First, we need to get the USTC repegged.
Repeg USTC to increase demand and Terra Swap will burn LUNC.
At this time, only minting of LUNC is stopped.
This reduces the supply of LUNCs.
This proposal works exclusively within TCC without relying on CEX or other chains.
To do this, we need some capital and zero distribution. Taxes alone wonât help.
No Tonu, this is is not a trick. We are going for the REAL DEAL. My plan has a credible path to achieving the 1.2% burn tax off-chain. If we succeed on major exchanges, there is no trick whatsoever. The HYPE will be on ANOTHER LEVEL. This is real huge daily sustained burning of the LUNC supply.
If my plan canât achieve 1.2% off chain burn tax within 6 months, itâs a failure and the tax changes can be rolled back. Consider what I am really pushing for Tonu. Itâs not just about hype which fades due to no performance. Iâm talking about the whole deal.
That proposal has minting, so that alone is a definite NO for me.
First, you should read @tamashi_papa USTC Repug idea proposal on Twitter and agola carefully.
ttps://medium.com/@gorillagrip/repeg-idea-flexible-delegation-to-reduce-ustc-supply-49b43613eb3b
I read the proposal it is very complex, involves 2 new coins and has MINTING. Definite NO from me, and that wonât change. If you want to discuss that proposal go do it in its own thread, and leave my thread for my Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+.
It no use, mate. The volume didnât increase because staking was reintroduced and people were moving coins prior to the tax being implemented.
Donât use the word âmintingâ in vain or bring up proposals that includes the word âmintingâ ⊠itâs profanity around here!!!
Christopher doesnât like it and gonna ask God to shut the doors to heaven on you!
You burn tax haters will twist yourself inside out before acknowledging the importance of burning. Your revision of history will not be accepted.
Look at you coming to defend minting again. Youâre a real degenerate WAGNER. You love to attack my plan which can burn up LUNCâs hyperinflated supply, but salivate over anything with minting in it. Youâre a real disgrace, and attacking my religion. You are weak.