you are again trying to mislead everyone, if it is not possible for you, then others for others it is feasible. Or do you want to say that the MEMO label is used on exchanges for all cryptocurrencies. You’re wrong.
That’s why your plan is a failure and not real.
You’re wrong too often.
1 Like
Stop trolling my thread, go make your own proposal thread for your bad idea.
I forgot to say he doesn’t like parity with the wider Cosmos, he he opposes Alliance module, and he opposes any UST repeg effort.
@JESUSisLORD if you believe so much in burning, why don’t you start burning a share of your commission fee? A few validators did it back in the day, mostly abandoned the narrative along the way… don’t you wonder why ?
2 Likes
I support technical parity and exceeding, but NO to merge, NO to Alliance module due to altering our oracle pool rewards structure, NO to USTC re-peg in general, though I Abstained on Redline’s prop for the reasons I stated here: https://twitter.com/ForTheCross_CH/status/1650347268950880258
I addressed why I don’t burn coins above, you don’t need to wonder WAGNER, I’ll quote it for you:
You can’t restrain yourself from trolling my thread. Why don’t you go respond to some other people on this forum? You’re obsessed. You’re so mad I don’t like MINTING, aren’t you? This is your account responses:
2 Likes
Man do you want to burn Lunc?
Offer to share 25% every 1st of the month of your validator’s profits to anyone who sends luncs to the d3ath wallet .
1 lunc sent to wallet d3ath=1token(x) granting the right to its share of 25% of your profits (divided among all holders of the token(x)) if the rewards do not satisfy the user by burning the token(x ) you get double the rewards received and this compensates for the inflation of the token(x) but you have continuous burns and above all an increase in proxies.
In this way you would share 25% always or 50% one-off.
If some validator reads the comment, hurry up and do it yourself, whoever does it first gains notoriety, and above all since we all earn from burns, this is marketing at 0 cost.
Burn LUNC always costs. As it has a value per coin?
suppose I’m a validator. income from delegation commissions. i decide to share 25% of my profits with lunc senders to d3ath wallet. I create a protocol like DFLunc. and for every lunc the user burns I give a token(x). 25% of my profits will be divided among the holders of the tokens (x) according to the quantity in their possession. obviously, as happened for the DFLunc validator, I would have more proxies, so it’s a win-win. when it comes to the situation that the token(x) is too inflated, the rewards decrease for each user, to encourage the burn, offer double the reward for that month if you burn your token(x). then the validator shares 25% of the profits or 50% one-off.
You see, it’s not that I’m mad you don’t like minting, cause I’m not … you’re entitled to your opinion! But really, engaging with you is like walking in circles, cause no matter the issues we raise in your proposal, you always answer by copying’n pasting or refurbishing old answers.
Talking about obsession, you are the one obsessed with your own narrative. Your plan is excellently! How many times have you written this sentence?!? It’s a nice way of attracting people to your cause (just like Rabbi uses spreading false rumors, twisting facts and attacking people as a weapon). But apart from that, your plan is full of holes and you close your eyes to them, probably to hide the fact that you lack the technical knowledge of some basics stuffs that doesn’t even qualifies you to validate this network.
1 Like
Your points were clearly addressed by the plan itself even in the OP, and were not good critiques to stop my plan. You’re just on a sad mission to bash my good proposal, with your deceitful agenda, personal attacks and superiority complex. Go make your own proposal and put in all the things you love in it such as ZERO BURN TAX, and ULTRA MINTING. I’ll VETO it of course. Pathetic WAGNER. Good thing trolls such as yourself don’t decide the direction of LUNC.
@babymonkeymusk go post in your own proposal thread about your idea, I’m not interested.
1 Like
You’re a strange dude, if possible you should be kicked out of validators, you can’t be given power, you only hear yourself, you don’t know how to formulate your answers, you don’t know how to argue, you don’t know how to talk to people, you don’t know how to explain your thoughts, you insult people, you have a very inflated conceit. Your plan won’t be accepted- veto it, and I just told you why.
I talked to people who have read your plan and this page, they laugh and are at a loss, but not from the plan, but from how you communicate with opponents.
Don’t reply to my post, I don’t care about your opinion.
I’ve said it all.
3 Likes
You came here and personally attacked me and ridiculed my plan, and promoted blacklisting, then play the victim because I am responding to trolls. Now you want to blacklist me too as a validator and harass me because you’re angry and bitter and upset by the truth. People love to dish it out but they can’t take it themselves. You haven’t engaged with me fairly here.
I answered any genuine questions or comments fairly here, you can read the entire thread. I deal with people in a reasonable and fair manner, but I don’t accept trolling.
I don’t agree with your proposal, you can make your own thread about it, and ask developers about your removing the memo and forcing all exchange transactions on-chain and why that won’t work.
My thread has been continually trolled by people who do not read or engage with the plan, yet when people get spoken back to and corrected, they get upset and cry and want to down-vote the proposal. You and your friends can vote however you want. I’d like to see them deal with numerous people trolling their proposal threads and see how they handle it.
However the vote goes in June I’ll accept the outcome. If it passes great thank God and if it doesn’t I will try again later. Your bullying attempts will not work.
4 Likes
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
This topic was automatically opened after 6 days.
Great thoughts from the author of the topic. I see a lot of potential for Lunc. I am very grateful for the recovery plan to everyone involved and making a great effort to rebuild. But I think the chosen vector of recovery will take a very long time. The burns are a very good thing. But there are coins that have unlimited issue for example Ethereum and its price is much higher. And maybe we’re getting too hung up on that. There is a saying, the main thing is not to lose the moon while counting the stars. I think that it is necessary to return utility for Lunc. As well as mass implementation of this utility. So that everyone on the planet know about this usefulness and want to use it. If we still want to burn as many Lunc as possible, perhaps we should create a proposal to block and block the issue. For example, as Klaytn did. And all the released money from the pool to be spent on new developments. Some revolutionary technology from the internet trade, logistics, space, or biohacking, to prolong human life, so we can all fly to the moon as quickly as possible.
I also have a question, why can’t we burn a certain amount when launching a new L1 Task Force network? Like Klaytn did.
Details here ( the link is not for advertising have nothing to do with this blockchain, I just want us all to go to the moon together as fast as possible. Love you LUNC)
Thank you for the proposal and the time invested into it. As a CEX or trader, I wouldn’t find it appealing to pay a 1.2% tax when there are other coins available with lower or no taxes at all. I believe such a high tax rate will significantly impede trading volume. Therefore, it is crucial for us to explore alternative methods of burning more LUNC, such as increasing utility and gaining more exposure on social media platforms. Additionally, if the price of LUNC starts to rise, it will generate hype and naturally lead to an increase in trading volume.
Here is an update on my proposal after the recent governance votes have passed. Please read it for detail. Regards, Christopher.
Hi @alego thank you for sharing your view but I disagree, as demonstrated by the PEPE pump, people were totally fine paying up to 60% of their purchase price on gas fees, and the coin was exploding with volume and price, people became millionaires from small investments, so I don’t believe a 1.2% burn tax on exchanges will stop trading.
LUNC used to trade at $119. Once investors and traders see we have a credible and active plan to burn our hyperinflated supply, the interest and hype will be immense, as will the price and volumes, due to the huge daily/weekly burns of LUNC. The hope of the 1.2% burn tax being implemented off-chain was the major reason for the pump to $0.0006 last year. If we not only have the hope, but the reality of billion + daily burns if my plan succeeds, we will see immense price rises and volume.
Traders will trade. I’ve addressed algorithim traders earlier in this thread (they will need to adapt). LUNC investors and burning our supply is our main priority. Dapps cannot burn our supply, and as an example, LUNA has 3.5x our on-chain volume but their dapps only make $300 a day, with no burn tax. If they ALL came here after parity (extremely unlikely), it wouldn’t make much difference at all to our burn rate, so that is not a credible plan. Whitelisting dapps (which dfunk’s prop just passed), and having a real burn strategy like my Vision Plan is the real way we can burn trillions of LUNC and see $1+ soon.
2 Likes
Here you come again. Let’s get things straight again:
- LUNA traded at 119 before the crash and before the death spiral that caused the hyperinflation
- It wasn’t the burn tax activation that caused the price on-chain volume surge, it was the staking reenactment and people trying to suck as much staking rewards early on without paying much taxes
- volume went down as soon as the burn tax was ignited and kept going down since then
- We just messed with the burn tax for the first time since last year, this is not the moment to do it again
- Burns without usecases render the chain useless, therefore less valuable …
- Your plan do no offer any incentives for the 1.2 adoption besides whitelisting wallets (which really means nothing to CEX)
- Your plan will drive volume away even more cause it raises on-chain to 1.5
- The rest of you plan is a cut-and-past of other people’s idea (dfunk split to distribution module and dApps whitelisting) or a signal to other people to do the hard work for you (L1JTF mediating with CEX)
- Your plan is not excellent (it’s a death circle itself) and will not help burn daily billion burns.
3 Likes
Interesting idea. Good work!
Reduce USTC supply is very important now.
You don’t make things straight, but you try to make straight things crooked.
Yes LUNC used to be called LUNA. LUNC is Luna Classic, and once traded at $119. You can look at a chart and see the decline. What’s your point aside from pointlessly disputing?
I never claimed the burn tax activation on-chain itself caused the pump, as that happened after. I said the code for its implementation passed shortly before the pump and due to the hope of the 1.2% burn tax off-chain, this was the major reason for the pump.
Without the 1.2% soon being implemented there would have been no pump to $0.0006. It was the burning plan which gave investors hope of a dramatic reduction in supply and it is still the best path for the chain. Volume and prices went down when the 1.2% was removed, with relentless FUD and the vote to remove it up after only 2 weeks on-chain. The 0.2% tax has done nothing but result in lower volumes, burns, little utility and crashing prices.
I don’t care about your opinion about not touching the tax. You support minting and hate burning.
Burning is not useless, that’s a dumb comment. You want to wait for LUNA’s dapps to come here first? Those same dapps which if we got them all would bring less than $300 per day? Useless plan. We need to focus on burning. Utility can be whitelisted from on-chain tax, the proposal already passed for that.
Liar Wagner the other core incentive in my plan is deposits to participating exchanges being exempt from the 1.5% on-chain tax. This is a good incentive.
As to driving away volume, lowering the tax from 1.2% to 0.2% did not improve volumes. We need off-chain burns to burn the supply, which is the core goal of my plan, my plan runs for a finite time period (6 months) within which to achieve the goal of 1.2% burn tax on buys and sells on exchanges. If we secure off-chain burns the price will pump, and so will on-chain volume as it did during the $0.0006 pump (it rose more than 30x).
Your attack on my plan is false. My plan is a credible plan to achieve off-chain burns, your false allegations of plagiarism I have addressed here:
Sc(ammy Governance - #54 by JESUSisLORD and Sc(ammy Governance - #57 by JESUSisLORD.
You don’t criticise Redline because his plan needs help from TGF to reach out to exchanges. That’s because you’re a hypocrite with a vendetta.
My plan if successful will indeed result in multi-billion LUNC daily burns. We can burn the supply very fast under my plan if successful, and see huge price rises and volume.
People, don’t let guys like Wagner deceive you, they freely lie, and he is an anti-taxxer who supports minting and hates burning. He will use any excuse to attack my plan, which is a credible plan to achieve the 1.2% burn tax off-chain. He has said himself he doesn’t want post-crash LUNC investors to prosper and benefit.
My plan will go up for vote in June. Thankfully the community will decide the vote, not trolls like Wagner.
5 Likes
Are you a toddler or something?!? The same old non-technical argument (love and hate towards burning / minting; God’s will)
The day you understand the fundamentals of burning and minting, the swap module that was the core of Terra, why seigniorage is not harmful to a healthy ecosystem, and how to connect your wallet to trade on DEX (I can bring your post up), os gonna be the day that I will respect you as a valued member of this community.
Until then, you will only be another individual trying to capitalize over peoples hope and profit from it.
1 Like