Another way is for example put 1,5% for the sellers only in the trading operations, that could make a incentive to buy and not for sell and this can help to pump the coin
Full support on this plan. Well explained and written. I think this will pump investing activity and high expectations on price
Algorithm bot traders will need to adapt. We will be in consultation with exchanges and if they agree to implement the 1.2% burn tax off-chain this is our priority. How they deal with their relationships with market markers and adjust contracts is their own internal focus. Our focus is on benefiting LUNC investors by rapidly burning the supply. If we get the 1.2% burn tax off-chain we will see huge price movement, volume and burns. The hype of recovery will be amazing.
The 1.2% burn tax on buys and sells maximises our burns as both buying and selling is subject to the burn tax. This is the ideal situation and is what we should pursue. Also see this I posted above about why we choose the 1.2% burn tax:
To implement this tax, we need to estimate trading volume decrees. In this calculation, the trading volume is divided into in average. This wont be happened in real result.
The downer the supply goes, the higher the price goes.
The higher tax is on, the more people leave.
Hmmm, it is difficult to reach a goal in 8 years with only this.
I’m still abstain for it.
Well consider implementing this taxation plan.
It is impossible to estimate exact volume changes after this proposal is implemented off-chain on major exchanges. Algorithm bots will need to adjust and their volume of trades may decline. However, volume of professional traders, investors and speculators will greatly increase as LUNC will pump greatly in price due to the hype of recovery, the huge burns will become a cycle that feeds on itself. I am certain we will see huge price rises and volume if we can succeed. I believe it will be greater than many can even imagine.
Here is my prior post above on this issue also for further explanation:
Hope you can provide proof that the 1.2% caused a 6x to 0.0006, I don’t remember it doing that for the 17 days it was active for. Kindly provide some proof. Also a 1.2% tax is not going to do anything with out real utility, we have none of that, before people say well we have Burning, that’s not real utility, real utility I consider defi being able to swap between LUNC → MARS or the simple things USTC → LUNC, love how I can do that on Rebel station and can’t do that on Station, Terraport made it even easier. Sure we have Gambling. Good luck on not screwing the Binance burns with yet another Tax change.
I support your ideas and I think it will go a long way in growing our community too.
I would suggest we act fast so that investors can come in the more.
The 1.2% was on-chain after that major rise, what I said was the hope of the 1.2% burn tax being accepted off-chain, as well as staking re-opening was a big reason for the major pump to $0.0006. Under my plan utility is tax exempt, so it can continue to build while we work on achieving off-chain burns to burn the supply. The overall tax has only been changed once from 1.2% to 0.2%. We’ve been on 0.2% for over 6 months with no results of volume, utility or burns. Binance supported the 1.2% tax while it was on-chain for 3 weeks. We won’t lose Binance from adjusting our tax rate and pushing for off-chain burns. The burns were almost lost and dropped 50% due to the irresponsible removal of the 1.2% and introduction of the 10% minting, and the further passing of the 50% minting proposal. See this link for more info Binance to Make Changes to the Burning of Terra Classic (LUNC) Trading Fees | Binance Support. My Vision Plan has ZERO minting as I hate minting and was always against it. CZ even 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. My plan takes this feedback into account with an achievable method to obtain the 1.2% burn tax off-chain. Getting the 1.2% burn tax off-chain will be amazing for LUNC, it will be an incredible breakthrough and opportunity for the chain, and we should pursue it properly as I request in this proposal.
Thank you I will give adequate time for community members to consider the final version of the proposal (the prior thread has been up for over a month), and when I feel there is enough community support the proposal will move to a vote.
I don’t understand, do you propose to tax both purchases and sales? That is, the trader will have to pay both for opening a position and for closing it?? This is 2.4%. If you trade on margin, even more so.
Overkill in my opinion
Yes it’s a 1.2% burn tax on every buy and every sell. If you buy LUNC the 1.2% burn tax is applied, and if you sell LUNC the 1.2% burn tax is applied. I disagree and believe it’s perfect, but you are welcome to your own view.
It is immediately clear that you have never traded. There will be no traders. There will be no intraday trading. Perhaps long-term investors will come. But not a fact. In any case, they are the only chance. But trade will stop. The stock exchanges will lose interest.
I support your proposal I just hope that enough validators vote in the good way, I wish you good luck and I will vote YES.
No trade won’t stop. Traders go where there is volatility, and will flock to a coin like ours that will be pumping with huge volumes and unprecedented and significant off-chain burns. Traders will need to account for the 1.2% when purchasing LUNC and 1.2% when selling LUNC. That’s 2.4% to do a buy and then sell it. It’s a fair tax and all will contribute who buy or sell LUNC. That’s the whole point so we can burn the supply. It was clear in the proposal this is the case, as the question we ask exchanges is: "Would you agree to apply the 1.2% burn tax on LUNC buys and sells if other exchanges do the same?”
LUNC will be rising by many multiples on the path to $1+ if we succeed in this plan. Traders will have plenty of opportunity. I’m surprised how people can somehow think having the 1.2% burn tax off-chain on exchanges would be a bad thing. It will absolutely be an amazing thing and LUNC will skyrocket. If we get the exchanges to agree then we have done our job. Traders need to adapt, they aren’t our priority, LUNC investors are!
And as I posted above in the original post I have addressed this topic:
There will be no volatility. By double taxing you will push them away. Buying coins will begin. The price will jump. Maybe even zero one will be lost. And that’s it. Trade will stop. There will be demand. There will be no sellers.
I thought the tax would be 1.2%. That’s a lot, but okay, traders would adjust. But 2.4% per trade will put them off. And the markets won’t agree
To push up this Taxation for CEXs, We can determin or estimate exact number of decrease of volume because this is the most important and needed for CEXs. Don’t forget they are Business, not voluntier.
this is my simple estimation here
estimation of reflection of tax hike on
[Consider the impact on trading volume when a 1.2%Tax is implemented.
Based on Japan’s consumption tax hike, it is estimated that consumption would fall by at least 0.4% when the 1% consumption tax is increased.
The 5% to 8% consumption tax hike in 2019 increased core CPI from 0.3% to about 0.8%. Also, two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth and recovery will take at least six months or more unless there are good fondamentals.
In terms of VAT, the price elasticity of demand for alcoholic beverages (beer), a fansy item with high price elasticity, is around 4.3.
In this sitiation, LUNC and USTC, which no a rapid price increase, are alternative and elastic tokens for investors.
Considering this, a 1% price decline would result in a 4.3% decrease in demand (trading volume).
・At least a 0.4% drop in trading volume.
・While implementing a 1.2% TAX, it will take at least 6 months to recover the volume unless there are upside factors.
・Price elasticity is high and price fluctuations are sensitive to changes in demand.
The figure will be exponential.
it is not enough but just one of the examples.
And we need to think about comparison between the higher price and the lower suply how affects on trading volume. IMO it figure will be proportional.
I have traded many memecoins with taxes far higher than 4% and made good profits. Your assertion is based on your own experience and does not equate to universal truth
good. Hopefully devs and community can coordinate to bring this back to life.
Wrong. It’s not double taxing, it’s a 1.2% burn tax on every transaction, which was always the proposal, which you misunderstood.
If you send your LUNC to the exchange and sell 1.2% will be taken for the burn. If you want to buy LUNC of course you need to pay the 1.2% burn tax on all LUNC purchases. It is obvious.
It’s a very reasonable tax, and no trading volume won’t plummet, the volume will be huge due to the massive burns, hope of recovery to $1+ and interest. You do not understand what would happen and how amazing this would be if we succeed.
Wrong, but you are welcome to your own view. All must contribute with our fair 1.2% burn tax on all buys and sells. That’s it.
The demand side pressure will be enormous. What the 1.2% burn tax will do is cause LUNC to skyrocket. If we succeed in getting the 1.2% burn tax off-chain, many will buy in when they see the massive daily or weekly burns and with the hope of recovery to $1+ and $119 all time high it will be a huge wave of volume, interest, speculation, and traders will naturally benefit but most of all LUNC investors. Even with bad volumes we can burn the supply in up to 7.2 years, with great volumes we could burn most of the supply up in a few years. The tremendous move in the price of LUNC will make will shock many and the crypto world. The 1.2% burn tax off-chain will be AMAZING if we can achieve it as a community together. I believe we can.
Let me tell you a little secret: if a 1.2% off-chain tax is introduced, then trading on decentralized exchanges will increase many times over.
The number of investors will grow very strongly.
Trading volumes will also grow very strongly.