there are a lot of words written in this proposal, but no mechanism has been proposed for the implementation of forcing exchanges to introduce a tax, and no mechanism for controlling burning on exchanges has been proposed.
How are you going to force - force the exchanges to agree with you and impose a tax on all transactions within the exchange?
We have already passed this road once, when CZ said no, and we could not do anything about it, so if CZ says no again, and you propose to lose my 6 months of life on a non-working offer?
Conclusion: This proposal does not offer real mechanisms for guaranteed acceptance by exchanges of a tax on all transactions within the exchange, but suggests spending 6 months on empty conversations.
The offer does not guarantee anything, say you are ready to entrust the life of your children or parents to an unknown uncle with a big name, I answer NO, I do not trust CZ.
I vote against this unrealizable proposal as a pointless waste of time on experiments.
I propose to force all exchanges (by any means up to blocking the address) to abandon the MEMO label. and each account on the exchange should be linked to a real address in the lunc blockchain.
If this proposal is implemented, then there will be no need to argue with exchanges, and burning will always take place in the blockchain, and the lunc community will be able to change the percentage of burning, if necessary, regardless of the consent or non-consent of the exchanges.
Kupiłem dużą ilość lunc po depegu obserwując agorę. Zainwestowałem wierząc społeczności, że olbrzymia podaż zostanie szybko zredukowana poprzez podatek 1,2% i Burn. Jestem ekonomistą i w myśl zasady " jeżeli podaż spada a popyt utrzymuje się na stałym bądź wyższym poziomie to cena rośnie" pomyślałem, że to może być dobra inwestycja na dłuższy czas. Dodatkowym powodem był staking i w późniejszym czasie obiecany repeg. Dzieląc procentowo zainwestowałem w 70% z powodu Burn, 20% z powodu stakingu, 10% repeg.
Zostałem oszukany przez społeczność lunc.
Podatek został zredukowany a podaż wzrosła. Z OP doszło około 157 miliardów lunc, w tym czasie spaliliśmy 55 miliardów lunc. Ze stakowania posiadam większą ilość mniej wartych lunc, a więc na minusie. Była propozycja sygnalizacyjna repeg po której nic się nie działo. Po ostatniej propozycji sygnalizacyjnej repeg ustc się stacza.
Takich jak ja było tysiące i zostaliśmy oszukani.
Takich jak ja cierpliwych idiotów, obserwujących jak się wiecznie kłócicie zostało niewielu. Reszta odeszła ponieważ nas oszukaliście.
Popełniliście błąd zmniejszając podatek, cena spadła wielokrotnie a wy jak politycy nie potraficie się do tego przyznać. Jestem w stanie zapłacić 5% 10% czy nawet 20% jeśli dzięki temu istnieje duża szansa że zarobię 50% lub 100%
Gwarantuje Wam, że olbrzymią większość interesuje zwiększenie ceny poprzez zmniejszanie podaży. Burn to podstawa, po jakimś czasie będą dołączać dappy i zwiększać użyteczność. Może za 2 lub 3 lata dappy staną się ważniejsze niż Burn i tego bym chciał. Przy tej cenie lunc większość validatorow dopłaca do interesu, coraz więcej z nich rezygnuje.
Gdzie jest Akujiro? Pholuna? Pewnie już dawno sprzedali lunc i odeszli. Użyteczności nie ma! Giełdy delistują lunc! Jest to ostatni moment aby spróbować wrócić na właściwie tory. Wszyscy którzy byli i są przeciwko planowi Jezusa albo są głupi albo działają przeciwko lunc. Użyteczności nie ma a cena jest na dnie, więc proszę przestańcie się sprzeciwiać, zmarnowaliśmy wiele miesięcy i w imieniu resztek cierpliwych idiotów inwestujących z powodu Burn ŻĄDAM wprowadzenia podatku!!!
Na agorze zarejestrowałem się dziś, ponieważ kończy mi się cierpliwość. Agorę obserwuje od lipca, stakuje prawie od włączenia stakingu, głosuje prawie we wszystkich głosowaniach. Nie jestem ani botem ani kolejnym czyimś kontem. Jestem zirytowanym inwestorem, który traci przez Was pieniądze!
Jezus w Twoim planie są zachęty dla Cexów, ale sam nie świecisz przykładem. Masz 2,4% siły głosu i 5% opłaty validatora. Nie widzę Cię w 25 największych palących lunc. Zacznij spalać 1% swojego zarobku codziennie lub chociaż 0,5% a zyskasz wiarygodność i większą siłę głosu. Dla zachęty obiecuję, że gdy zobaczę 2 dni pod rząd spalenia podpisane przez Ciebie, redeleguję do Ciebie 100milionów lunc. W tym miejscu namawiam wszystkich wierzących, że Burn może coś zmienić do tego samego.
Mamy już niewiele więcej do stracenia…
You are making a mistake, you are not counting correctly or you do not understand the essence of the burning problem a little.
The main problem is that the bulk of lunc coins are spinning on exchanges, and all transactions on exchanges take place outside the lunc blockchain, and therefore do not participate in burning. Therefore, at the moment, no matter how much the incineration tax increases, the exhaust will be almost zero. First of all, it is necessary to force exchanges to burn at least some kind of tax, it does not matter what. And in order to implement this burning on exchanges, it is necessary to force them to abandon the MEMO label. And attach to each account on the exchange a real address in the lunc blockchain.
After the implementation of this plan, all transactions and transactions will pass through the lunc blockchain and will be subject to burning. And that’s when everyone will see real big burns, and that’s when, if necessary, after discussion and voting, you can change the tax to any one that will be discussed and voted on, and it will automatically work on all exchanges as it will be changed in the lunc blockchain code.
I’m not in favor or against anything. I just reckon that burning and minting was the foundation of Terra ecosystem, and if we aim to have a fully descentralizes algo stablecoin, we gonna have to deal with burning and minting again some day.
Tbh, I’m in favour of development and solid plans to recapitalize the ecosystem. Burning alone doesn’t do that. - in contrary, it literally throws money out of the window. Burning without an usecase just puts the label “meme” over LUNC.
I bought a large amount of lunc after depeg watching the agora. I invested believing the community that the huge supply would be quickly reduced through the 1.2% tax and Burn. I am an economist and according to the principle “if the supply decreases and the demand remains at a constant or higher level, the price increases” I thought that it could be a good investment for a long time. An additional reason was staking and later the promised repeg. Percentage split, I invested 70% because of burn, 20% because of staking, 10% repeg.
I was scammed by the lunc community.
The tax was reduced and the supply increased. About 157 billion luncs came from OP, during that time we burned 55 billion luncs. From staking, I have a larger amount of less worth luncs, so in the minus. There was a repeg signaling proposal after which nothing happened. After the last signaling proposal repeg usc rolls down.
There were thousands like me and we were deceived.
Patient idiots like me watching you bicker forever are few and far between. The rest left because you tricked us.
You made a mistake by reducing the tax, the price has fallen many times and you, like politicians, are unable to admit it. I am willing to pay 5%, 10% or even 20% if it means I have a good chance of earning 50% or 100%
I guarantee you that the vast majority are interested in increasing the price by reducing the supply. Burn is the basis, after some time dapps will join and increase usability. Maybe in 2 or 3 years dappy will become more important than Burn and that’s what I would like. At this lunc price, most validators pay extra to the business, more and more of them resign.
Where is Akujiro? Pholuna? They probably sold the luncs long ago and left. There is no utility! Exchanges remove lunc! This is the last moment to try to get back on track. All those who were and are against the plan of Jesus are either stupid or are working against lunc. There is no utility and the price is at the bottom so please stop resisting, we have wasted many months and on behalf of the rest of the patient idiots investing over Burn I DEMAND a tax!!!
I registered on agora today because I’m running out of patience. He has been watching Agora since July, has been staking almost since turning on staking, and votes in almost all polls. I am neither a bot nor another person’s account. I’m an annoyed investor losing money because of you!
Jesus, there are incentives for the Cex in your plan, but you don’t lead by example. You have 2.4% voting power and a 5% validator fee. I don’t see you in the top 25 smoking luncs. Start burning 1% of your earnings every day or at least 0.5% and you will gain credibility and more voice. For encouragement, I promise that when I see 2 days in a row of burns signed by you, I will redeploy 100 million luncs to you. At this point, I urge all believers that Burn can make a difference to the same.
We have little more to lose…
I support this plan, it is super simple and productive to implement and will create hype and burn our supply. LUNC price is terrible now, and we need some good news and positive direction. Relying solely on dapps won’t burn our supply and the two can work simultaneously. 1% max fee, from your two comments above your proposal will go live first and later Jesusislord. I support the tax, and would like to have it implemented but don’t think we should force exchanges, I think that would lead to exchanges removing Lunc.
My plan is not about FORCING exchanges. We cannot force them. The other proposal with blacklisting is NOT GOOD. We cannot blacklist exchanges that will be a disaster. I’ll be voting NO on that prop.
My plan is about encouraging exchanges and incentivising them using the internal wallet whitelist, and deposits to their exchanges being exempt from the 1.5% on-chain tax. This tax incentivises LUNC sellers to use participating exchanges for a 0.3% tax saving. They are also incentivised by the other methods including L1TF reaching out, the way the plan is structured to have a simultaneous launch, and positive community pressure.
CZ didn’t say no. He said first put the tax on-chain. We did, then after only 3 weeks it was removed, not giving enough time to negotiate with exchanges. In that short time we achieved CZ offering the 1.2% burn tax opt-in, and burning his fees for us. He also said in the 23 September 2022 AMA, that the 1.2% burn tax could work if all the exchanges agree to implement it at the same time.
I have taken CZ’s feedback and incorporated it into my plan which is a good and realistic plan to achieve the 1.2% burn tax off-chain. The 6 months I ask is to give sufficient time to negotiate with exchanges. We may succeed earlier. If we don’t succeed, it’s not a major loss as the tax changes can be rolled back. In the meantime we have exempted dapp smart contracts so building will continue and we 15x increased our on-chain funding rate from the tax, so we will have a lot more money for building on-chain.
WRONG. You’ve ignored the incentives and the method of implementation of the plan to suit your agenda. This is an effort to convince exchanges under my plan, not what you prefer which is BLACKLISTING. Which will go absolutely nowhere. The community clearly voted by 98% majority against wallet blacklisting. It’s a bad idea, and will alienate us from exchanges, and will not work.
My plan is far superior to what you propose, which is actually dangerous.
Not going to happen.
Empty talk WAGNER. You support minting, and want it revisted. I hate minting, so I will always oppose it. Your critique is also empty, as my plan does not stop utility on-chain, with the dapp smart contract exemption and a 15x increase in on-chain funding from the tax. My plan doesn’t stop utility, it helps it. Plus it also lets us burn more and push for off-chain burns. You don’t even understand the proposal.
I have seen and witnessed what you experienced, I was very upset when the 1.2% burn tax was removed. We were robbed as I detail in this Twitter post: https://twitter.com/ForTheCross_CH/status/1648355323131105280.
I disagree with you, and I’ll explain why. Firstly, given the LUNC price, my enterprise level validator runs at a more than several hundred USD loss per month, so I am losing money. Next, the Lord led me to do competitions, not burns. I have made numerous competitions putting up my own LUNC to raise awareness for my Vision Plan. My focus is to pass my plan, which is the best tax plan which will benefit all. The purpose of my plan is so that everyone contributes by the 1.5% on-chain tax, and everyone contributes by the 1.2% burn tax on exchanges to burn the supply. This is the best and most effective tax. Relying on people to volunteer burns is not a sound solution to the issue. You can disagree and say I should burn what I can, but I chose to put my resources towards promoting my plan and efforts into that. My plan will be up for vote in June, and the community will make their choice. Regards.
You don’t give arguments, you built yourself a house and think it’s strong, while trying to convince everyone that you built this house from just two or three parts, but in fact you set up so many corners there that you will easily get lost yourself and get yourself a lot of bruises. Your plan is not workable and not realistic if you have convinced yourself that it will work, but we can see from the outside that everything is the opposite. You wrote that it doesn’t work to remove the MEMO, give arguments? in order to remove the MEMO label, only one action is needed, and after implementation everything will start working, unlike your plan for a hundred points in each of which you can get a negative result or get confused yourself.
Your answers are not convincing and not reasoned.
you tell fairy tales about the fact that validators work at a loss . . . . the question is, why did you go to the validators? go away, being a validator means working at a loss. You will not leave the validators, because everything is somewhat different. I suggest that in the future, personally, you no longer raise the topic about the loss of validators, but just take and leave the validators.
Now let’s analyze your answer about CZ’s refusal to burn transactions on exchanges, You mislead people, no one has canceled the burning tax!!! the tax remained and the community, and you as a validator, including, at the request of CZ, voted for a reduction from 1.2% to 0.2%, no one canceled the tax as you write!!!
No. My plan is well reasoned, easy to understand, and achievable. I answered your critiques and you have nothing else to offer but empty words with no substance. No my plan does not FORCE exchanges, and no there is no BLACKLISTING. You can go support other proposals with those features since that’s what you support. To put it in your own failed analogy for your bad idea, you are taking the house and bulldozing out the corners, the whole house collapses, LUNC is de-listed from all exchanges. Your plan is EXTREME, and won’t work. You can go make your own proposal thread about it, and go ask developers how bad of an idea it is.
You’re a liar, I spoke about myself as a validator and MY situation based on MY hosting costs. The user asked me why I wasn’t burning coins, and I explained why. You’re on an innaccurate personal rant against me, because your upset I don’t like your bad idea.
I haven’t mislead anyone, the 1.2% burn tax was wrongly removed after 3 weeks to 0.2%, and despite the promises of higher volumes and higher burns and great utility, none appeared, the burns are low, volume is low, utility is little and price continually crashing.
CZ did not request to remove the on-chain 1.2% burn tax, you’re a liar. CZ said the 1.2% burn tax could work if all exchanges agree to implement it at the same time. He said this in the 23 September 2022 AMA.
You guys support blacklisting, but refuse to give my proposal a chance to convince exchanges without it. I’ll vote NO on all blacklisting proposals, and so will most of the validators I believe. They already voted 98% NO to wallet blacklisting.
Agree,CEXs need to be pushed.
We cannot have this polite conversation talk any longer and keep begging them to implement the blockchain rules.
Before doing a full block,I suggest incentivising them by letting them keep 0.2% and burning off 1% on ALL buy/sell/convert trx.
If they still do not agree,then move to extreme step of blocking them completely.
Did I write it or did you ? it says here that the tax has been removed, or am I reading badly?
CZ didn’t say no. He said first put the tax on-chain. We did, then after only 3 weeks it was removed, not giving enough time to negotiate with exchanges. In that short time we achieved CZ offering the 1.2% burn tax opt-in, and burning his fees for us. He also said in the 23 September 2022 AMA, that the 1.2% burn tax could work if all the exchanges agree to implement it at the same time.
I have no desire to prove anything to you anymore, you are fixated on the castles in the air that you invented, then you start leveling the corners of the house (the house needs to be built immediately without corners, so that they do not demolish them later, as you suggest), then you negotiate with the exchange when there was already a bidder with unsuccessful contracts, personally I see the harm from your proposals, your proposal is a fog that will continue to drag the lunc community into a deep hole, and the graph that you have shown simply confirms the fallacy of any contracts with exchanges.
Exchanges should be offered to voluntarily join or step aside and not interfere with the development of the lunc blockchain.
I’ve said it all.
P.S. and to all readers I will ask one question, did the exchange become the initiator of the collapse of lunc and ustc?
The 1.2% burn tax on-chain was removed, and replaced with the 0.2% tax over 6 months ago, which we have now. That should be easy to understand. I get it, you don’t like my plan and want to force exchanges to comply. I don’t agree with that. You can go support proposals which call for blacklisting, or go get advice about your idea. I don’t agree with your opinion about my Vision Plan, and believe it is good for LUNC. We are in much need of change, and my plan if successful, which I believe it will be, can get LUNC back on track to $1+.
There is no use arguing with Chris… his plan is excellent and he hates minting, so he is absolutely right on every word he says… CEX receives no incentives to join besides having addresses whitelist, and a higher on-chain tax wouldn’t drive volume away cause o dApps whitelist… and I wonder how low the volume of tx would drop the day a 1.2% tax is applied by CEX… it’s already under 20mil
the size doesn’t matter, burn at least 100%, it won’t change anything.
As long as all exchanges, without exception, will not burn tax on all transactions on exchanges, no tax increase will affect anything.
Therefore, the first step is to ask the exchanges to voluntarily introduce a tax, or force them if they do not agree, and only then to discuss what this tax will be.
That’s why you have no idea WAGNER. The day the 1.2% burn tax is implemented off-chain on major exchanges the volume will skyrocket and so will the price. It will pump even before then just on the news alone. Binance and Kucoin alone daily volume is $24.7M today, 1.2% of that is a 3.5 billion LUNC daily burn even with this bad volume. Why do you think that’s a bad thing to burn billions per day? Last time we pumped to $0.0006 the on-chain volume went up over 30x, so we can expect that too. The main reason for the pump to $0.0006 was the hope of off-chain burns. The goal in my plan is off-chain burns for the plan to be a success, which has been stated repeatedly. My plan has a set time-frame to implement it. You’re in love with minting so much in your small mind you cannot comprehend how helpful burning billions of LUNC per day could be for our chain. It’s sport for you to attack my proposal but you don’t understand it or know what’s good for LUNC.
My plan is to ask them, but do so in a comprehensive manner with the same on-chain tax of 1.2%, offer incentives of internal wallet whitelisting and deposit exemption from on-chain tax, reach out and negotiate professionally with them by the L1TF with myself assisting, and seek to obtain a simultaneous launch across major exchanges to capture as much traded volume as we can. I don’t support blacklisting and will vote against it, but even if YOU do, you can support my plan to have a run first.
You can ask anyone and as much as you like, if you like to ask someone every time. The lunc blockchain is a self-sufficient structure, why, on what basis should we ask someone for something?
It’s time to decide do you work for the lunc blockchain or do you wash the floors at CZ on the stock exchange?
All your proposals are rigidly linked to the actions of the exchanges, it’s time to go your own way.
If you don’t like the free wide road of the lunc blockchain and you like that you are always told what to do by exchanges, it looks like a diversion.
I am sure that your plan will not be accepted, and will be assessed as harmful to the community.
The correct solution is just two steps.
1 - ask or force all exchanges, without exception, to agree to remove the MEMO label and implement a white address in the lunc blockchain for each account. After that, all transactions on the exchanges will take place in the lunc blockchain and the currently set 0.2% will be burned from each transaction.
2 - if the lunc community decides that 0.2% is not enough, it will be possible to discuss it, vote and change it in the blockchain code without asking the permission of the exchanges. And it will start working immediately everywhere, including exchanges, immediately after changing the code.
Only these two steps are correct and understandable for everyone, including exchanges.
Interesting read will vote yes. I think the CEX issue is going to be difficult but hope you can do it. Even though I agree with the principles of the 0.2% tax, I still believe the higher tax should have been evaluated for a longer period of time.
Your criticism is hollow. Yes we need to request exchange consent to apply the 1.2% burn tax off-chain. My proposal has no blacklisting, only professional requests and positive pressure and incentives.
No it won’t work, there isn’t a way to make all their buy and sells be on-chain. You can make your own thread to promote your proposal which is not wise, and I do not believe is even possible.
The Turkish community doesn’t want you and your work.
Thank you,
Bye