Many, including myself, began staking, which resulted in a significant increase in the price of LUNC. I distinctly recall the price of LUNC decreasing when the trading volume declined due to the previous tax increase. Considering this historical event, I am skeptical about the price going up once again if we raise taxes. It appears that you are attempting to achieve a different outcome by employing the same approach.
1 Like
The price rose after the introduction of the 1.2% tax. And fell after the cancellation. I remember it well. Donât be confused
1 Like
In Aug 25 2022, restaking LUNC was re enabled.
In Sep 06 2022, the price of LUNC reached $0.0006.
In Sep 20 2022, prop #3568 [Tax/Burn 1.2% all transactions] went live.
From Sep 20 to Sep 25, the price of LUNC went down 43%.
1 Like
The community has wised up to the stupid minting idea (which caused the hyperinflaionary death spiral and lost us 50% of Binanceâs burns), and you are upset and use every opportunity to push it, and rally against burning. You admittedly donât want LUNC investors to profit. I want LUNC to go to $1+ so everyone makes money but you donât want that, as youâve admitted you donât want post-crash LUNC investors to benefit. You lie and deceive all the time in your demonic vendetta against me and my plan. I donât care for your respect or approval Wagner. You are my enemy.
In my view the pump to $0.0006 was mainly due to the near implementation of the 1.2% burn tax with the hope of it being accepted off-chain, not staking alone. That said, the goal of my plan is not just to raise taxes on-chain and leave it at that. The goal is to achieve the 1.2% burn tax off-chain for massive burns where all the volume is. If my plan canât get off-chain burns in 6 months the plan is a failure and the tax changes can be rolled back. The last attempt at securing off-chain burns was sabotaged (relentless FUD, whales publicly shorting), it only had 2 weeks on-chain before the vote to remove it was up. There was great progress made in that time with CZ agreeing to a 1.2% opt-in and doing fee burn, and saying the 1.2% burn tax could work if all the exchanges implement it at the same time (23 Sept 22 AMA). The community should not have given up. I believe we should revisit the 1.2% burn tax and push for off-chain adoption, and give it a full effort of 6 months, not a few weeks. If we succeed LUNC will be on a path to $1+ and billions per day will be burned, the hype will return. The community will decide on my plan in June.
1 Like
And you are probably correct on that part.
Yet we have historical data that proves - volume died off way before it actually was implemented. Volume and the price died out roughly 3 weeks before burn tax went live and the short time we had the burn tax - the price didnât flip to the upside. Neither did volume.
And we can only ponder what would have happened if it didâŚ
But, no, we have memes that have actual burn taxes with buy/sell in place. They are not seeing magical price appreciation. Check $Babydoge. A true meme. Built on BSC and available on ETH as well.
Fast and cheap transactions, their own credit card, more liquid than TC, farm pools everywhereâŚButâŚPrice is stagnant.
Sure, we must also account for the fact that it is deep bear market in crypto and fiat markets alike, but nobody gets hard or excited for burns and reduction of supply through artificial burns.
Eth side had their tax cut to 0% to see any sort of stability/and or hope for price appreciation.
Point being - burn tax is a short term hype builder, not a long term path to success 
Or if you can provide one example from the 13 year history of crypto to prove me wrong, I am keen to listen.
Thank you for the conversation, JESUSisLORD. I sincerely appreciate your effort and the time youâve dedicated to our team, the LUNC team. Each member plays a crucial role in ensuring its success. However, I believe the optimal moment to promote the 1.2% tax has passed, and it might not be practical to incentivize the CEXs at this point. Although burning tokens could potentially raise the price of LUNC, I strongly advocate exploring alternative options that encourage higher trading volume, generate excitement, and maintain our current tax structure. By keeping a reasonable tax rate, we can attract more projects to our chain. It is crucial to be patient and demonstrate to entrepreneurs that we are a worthy investment of their time and resources. Please know that I take no pleasure in dismissing othersâ ideas, and I apologize if it seemed that way. My intention is solely to express my opinion on the matter.
On May 23, the tax will increase to 0.5%.
Letâs see what changes will happen within 1-2 months.
And closer to August it will be possible to raise the tax a little more and increase the gas fee.
1 Like
Hi Tonu, LUNC is different. Those meme coins, especially on ETH have big gas fees involved in getting them a lot of the time, such as PEPE.
The reason why LUNCâs 1.2% burn tax if successfully implemented off-chain wonât peter out after an initial spike is due to LUNCâs unique history.
Meme coins started out with trillions of supply. LUNC only has 6.85T supply due to a hyperinflationary death spiral catastrophe which rocked the crypto space, with 40 billion in losses.
Everyone knows about LUNC, everyone knows about Do Kwon. Everyone knows about âsteady ladsâ.
Our coin got abandoned by its creator and team, they did not want to fix it, they left LUNC and made their own coin, taking with them their dapps and community. Volunteers and a hopeful community rallied around LUNC and the hope of the burn tax being successful.
LUNC formed based on the goal of reviving LUNC and restoring the chain, and burning our hyperinflated supply. CZ said LUNC should be burned, not a new fork (LUNA).
Our coin LUNC, before it became Luna Classic traded at $119. People know this. LUNCâs history is unique.
If we can succeed in getting off-chain 1.2% burn tax we are going to see huge daily and weekly burns, simply massive compared to what we have seen. The hype will be immense.
People will buy back in knowing LUNC used to be at $119 and believing it will go back there.
This is why LUNC is different and why my plan can work, if itâs successful.
Hi Alego you are welcome to your view. Recent statistics shows that LUNA with all its dapps, zero burn tax and 3.5x our on-chain volume, their dapps only make around $300 a day. Even if they all came to LUNC after parity it would do almost nothing to burn our supply. This is why I advocate for my plan which is a credible path to burn trillions and reach $1+ if we can succeed. My plan is a timed shot of 6 months to try to achieve a huge goal. If it doesnât work then we gave it a good run (unlike last time), and the 1.5% tax on-chain can be lowered back if the community wishes. I believe itâs worth a shot to fully explore that option as the upsides, if successful, are immense.
2 Likes
Money is still the same. No matter how you cut it.
To all the spchiel, just tell me this: How much volume do you generate and how much have you personally burned out of your own pockets?
2 Likes
You look like Rabbi, putting words on other peoples mouth, and twisting facts and their ideias to demonize them. You really are a toddler, or have a mental illness. âYou donât want investors to profitâ, âyou are my enemyâ lol. Grow up, Chris! God is watching you!
I twisted nothing. Here are YOUR words:
Everything Iâve said about you is true. You are a lying, deceiving, anti-taxxer and are pro-minting, and you donât care about post-crash LUNC investors or the price going up. Youâre deranged and evil, with a personal vendetta against me. You also mock my faith as a Christian in numerous posts and now you say God is watching me, while accusing me falsely again. I know God, who is Jesus Christ. I seek Him every day in prayer and keep His word. He leads me and I do His will. You are my enemy. Jesus Christ rebuke you.
I answered your question, now you divert. LUNC is different from those other coins. LUNC is unique. You want it to be another LUNA v2, waiting for dapps which make tiny $ which cannot burn our supply. Your questions are irrelevant to my proposal, and are distractions so you can attempt to launch another personal attack against me, like youâve done before. Under my plan ALL users contribute to the burn and funding the chain by the 1.5% on-chain tax, something you appear to be afraid of. This is the same for the 1.2% burn tax off-chain, where all buy and sells will contribute to the burn. This is the most fair outcome to burn LUNC, to fund our chain, and to reduce our hyperinflated supply.
What exactly makes it unique. List what it has that others donât. Are you able to name these great volume driving parts?
But not all users are the same. Hodlers generate no volume. Traders do.
So is your proposal. It is irrelevant.
See, itâs not us who need to convince you. Itâs you who needs to list the merits that this proposal has, but you fail to do so still.
Answer the question: How much have you personally burned out of pocket and how much volume do you generate?
Letâs check the hoops, shall we?
You buy. (1.5%). You send to wallet (1.5%). You stake (1.5%). You withdraw (1.5%). You sell (1.5%)
Traders, bots, day traders etc pay 1.5% on each and every transaction. So it means that they need to generate at least 1.6% of profit to be in the positive.
Which in itself is not an issue, but it also does not generate any incentive to trade it en-masse.
And you would need to get every DEX and CEX into the play or do the dumbest thing - start blacklisting them. Like you are in a position of power, while you are not.
So again - lead by example and tell me how much have you burned from your holdings?
I already answered you why LUNC is unique and why my plan if it succeeds in getting the 1.2% off-chain will not be a pump and d-ump, which is your claim Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+ - #307 by JESUSisLORD.
Holders generate staking rewards, which if they use for expenses do generate on-chain volume by swaps of USTC to LUNC and transfers to exchanges. They also contribute on-chain when buying more LUNC and withdrawing to the wallet to stake. Traders donât generate on-chain volume. Their volume is off-chain which does nothing for us right now. Under my plan we will tax all off-chain 1.2% so they will contribute if they want to trade LUNC.
Iâve responded to you many times. You wonât be convinced because your deluded by the dapps burn our supply fantasy. Also, you can vote however you want Tonu, I need to convince the majority of the community and validators to agree. You arenât the gatekeeper of my plan.
The plan is 1.5% on-chain (1.2% burn tax, 0.3% funding), and 1.2% burn tax off-chain on all buys and sells. Get it right Tonu.
Deposits to participating exchanges will be exempt from the 1.5% on-chain tax, to tax incentivise users to use exchanges who burn for us. They also get their internal wallets whitelisted from on-chain tax.
My plan has no blacklisting and Iâve spoken against that, I donât support it and will vote against it. Yes under my plan we are seeking to gain consensus between major exchanges to launch the 1.2% burn tax off-chain on buys and sells. If we can convince enough and get enough of the traded volume to participate, with the incentives offered and a simultaneous launch, we can address their concerns about user loss.
Where I said Iâm against profit?!? Read carefully: â your plan is aboutâŚâ. Iâm thinking you are definite retarded. That must be the reason why you copyânâpaste other peoples plan as your own and you repeat yourself every single answer.
I donât even know you, why would I have a grudge against you on a personal level ?!? I just think your plan wonât work and you are here to gain visibility and attract followers and delegators. You are a wannabe influencer with zero knowledge of blockchain tech and De-Fi trying to capitalize over peoples hope of becoming millionaire. And since you like chasing pictures of old posts and twist it to your flavor, untwist this:
Using Godâs name in vain or to slander other is a sin according to the Bible. You should go confess right away or you wonât sleep at night.
That wasnât much of answer. ETH chain has fees, memes have or donât have them.
You can also trade on BSC with cheap fees.
We are not unique due to it. There are chains cheaper than ours
What makes LUNC coin unique was left unanswered.
If and again - they arenât actively generating volume daily.
Itâs the most cost-effective way to generate income while reducing circulating supply, sure, but it generates very limited volume. Which makes the burns irrelevant.
You donât understand the correlation between having more users generating bigger volume?
Still?
So the exhanges that do use burns vs those who do notâŚItâs quite easy to skip the burns then. Just use a exchange that does not implement it.
And you are back to last year September. Plan is flawed.
You hope to convince enough. You hope.
Yet, if I need LUNC and I have say Lbank who doesnt have 1.5% burns - means I can acquire my lunc.1.5% cheaper than the other chains.
Meaning Iâm already profiting. What do you think users will do? Stay to burn their money or use the available options without burns.
Even you, big propagator of burns, arenât willingly burning any part of your holdings. Yet you wish to push it on some. Good plan Good luck.
It says it right there Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+ - #310 by JESUSisLORD, you donât want post-crash LUNC holders to profit. You hate my plan because it profits post-crash LUNC holders. Youâre a bad liar Wagner you canât weasel your way out of what you yourself wrote.
Whatâs to untwist? I admitted I hadnât used an off-wallet connect DEX before. I still havenât. So what? Your point in the thread was that somehow DEXâs will get a huge volume boost from exchanges if they adopt the 1.2% burn tax off-chain, like thatâs a point against my plan. I told you many people are uncomfortable connecting their wallet to something like a DEX, and the only DEXâs I know of with LUNC are in-wallet through Terra Station.
No Wagner, what I said was appropriate. You are evil. You exude it. You have a big personal vendetta which is evidenced by your continual mocking and attacking my faith over numerous posts. You have nothing useful to contribute but just to troll my proposal thread because it threatens your hope of re-establishing minting, you hate burning, and know my plan will benefit post-crash LUNC investors if the plan is successful, so this enrages you. This is why you make all sorts of false accusations against me, tell me to âshut upâ on Twitter, and are a hypocrite.
No it was answered you ignored the answer.
Whereâs your proof stakers withdrawing their rewards and sending to exchanges to sell contributes very little to on-chain volume or on-chain burns?
LUNA has 3.5x our on-chain volume. Their dapps produce next to nothing $ wise. Your grand plan is futility. Waiting for mystery unknown dapps to burn the supply is a garbage plan.
LUNC sellers who hold off-chain get a 0.3% tax saving to use participating exchanges under my plan. It will be 0.3% more expensive to move your LUNC from a wallet to a non-participating exchange and sell.
Yeah thatâs the point with making a proposal Tonu, you hope it passes⌠
Itâs not the proposal.
Itâs you hoping to convince enough exchanges. What will you offer them in return? Nothing.
Hope is a bad bet if you are gambling with legitimacy of the chain and are telling every user and dapp owner that they must sacrifice their assets since you had a plan.
1 Like
There are two good incentives for exchanges under the plan, which was explained to you, and youâve ignored them. You have a habit of this. You can read the OP anytime.
Dapps can apply to be whitelisted from on-chain tax once the smart contract whitelist is prepared, the proposal just passed governance from dfunk.
It sounds like youâre the one who is afraid of contributing by the 1.5% on-chain tax, or the 1.2% burn tax on exchanges if the plan is successful. Yes all LUNC users will contribute by the fair and reasonable tax. Thatâs the point of the plan.
Raising our on-chain tax and asking exchanges to apply the burn tax is gambling with the legitimacy of the chain? No, removing the 1.2% burn tax was the real mistake. My plan is to go back to what we should have kept all along.
Donât worry Tonu, Iâll continue to advocate for my plan. If it passes in June great. If not, Iâll continue to push for the 1.2% burn tax and my plan anyway, and will use my VP and influence to accomplish the goal when it can be done. I am determined.
Youâre upset I donât want to join you in your terrible plan of waiting for mystery dapps to burn the supply.
Anything else?
You keep ignoring to answer anything by actual facts or providing the source materials. You just say its all good and fair over and over and how this is your plan. Round and round you goâŚ
Community voted it out. So you are asking the same community to now change their decision a third time, since you had such a plan.
I mean, Chris, we both know this plan doesnât go anywhere, but you fail to see it.