It’s the context you put it in.
You have barely got any criticism, the ones you did - you brush away without any facts to support your views, but just that…you want to do it.
The plan is deeply flawed not because of the tax, not because of community asking for CEX’s help, but due to the fact that it doesn’t lead to nowhere.
It does not bring us continued heights, it provides nothing to actually fund the chain to keep the lights on. It has an expiry date since it’s so one sided.
You have a plan that only sees how money burns. Everyone’s money burns. Burn maxis bless JebusisLord.
But at some point - fees are due, infra is due, support is due, server bills are due. What do you say to them? That you’ll burn 1.2% of their asked amount?
Tax, tax freely. Tax higher. But tax wisely. Give something meaningful in return. No taxation without representation.
You keep failing to cater to one specific group of folks and those folks are the lowest denominator. Easy prey.
@Tonu_Magi I didn’t expect fair criticism from you and as usual you deliver.
If you read the plan you would see that utility is tax exempt so pays no tax instead of 0.2% now, which encourages dapps on-chain. You would have also seen if you read the plan that the 1.5% on-chain tax rate is comprised of a 0.3% component to fund the chain, which is a 15x increase in our current funding rate.
This huge boost in funding can boost building on chain, L1, L2, incentivise dapps, funding the oracle pool etc. This is a burning and building plan, not burning alone like you accuse. If we succeed in this plan at achieving the 1.2% burn tax off-chain LUNC will skyrocket and we’ll be flush with interest, new community members, funding and more.
The fact you can gloss over this and attack the proposal unjustifiably and myself personally by your hatred of Christians shows you have malicious intent.
You can’t survive on gas fees alone.
You burn more than you earn.
Pick up a calculator.
You do know that we enjoy TFL paying for infra, right?
Where do you expect the money to come from?
You only see “burn” and repeat “burn” to appease to the moonbois. You can’t pass governance with that.
You task L1 with contacting and discussing and marketing it with CEX’s.
L1 is already mandated for Q2. So you have Q3 - yet you still need to pay the team for their work. So you now turn to CP - yet not much there. You see the issue with this prop?
You can’t enforce extra duty on L1 for nothing and they need to agree to the extra load. With parity and chain upgrades taking place - L1 is short handed and overbooked for 3 months.
Now, your proposal will need a team still who would speak for the chain, assuming signal passes, well - that team is yours to source or amend your prop now.
The community guidelines are non-enforcable and utterly pointless to put in there, since it’s as if you already are guaranteed victory in having community backing.
It is…highly improbable that any burn tax prop nowadays sees more than veto.
Your vision is onesided. Still is.
If you are going to tax - make the tax meaningful for both sides and offer something tangible in return.
The 1.5% on-chain tax has a 0.3% component which goes to the community pool. This is a transaction tax not gas fees. Gas fees are their own thing which I’ve already stated could afford to be doubled, but is not part of this proposal. Since you talk about a calculator, why don’t you divide 0.3% by 0.02% and tell me the answer. That’s the difference between our current community pool funding rate from the tax and the one I propose.
I literally just explained how my plan will 15x our community pool income from the tax and you ask how we will fund anything under my plan? Be serious and stop trolling @Tonu_Magi.
Here are some rough figures for you. We burn about 30M per day on 0.2% with a 90/10% split (0.18%/0.02%), which is about 3.3M going to the CP per day or 100M per month or 300M per quarter.
Under my proposal we will have a 0.3% CP rate from the tax. At current volumes it would be about 50M LUNC into the CP per day, or 1.5B per month or 4.5B per quarter. This is a huge funding rate. We can pay for a lot with this, and when LUNC starts going up we can fully take over any infrastructure from TFL and be fully independent.
The L1 Team all work part time. I have reached out to them, and I will work with them in fulfilling the proposal. I will work with them on the list, contacting, responses, anything I can do to help and minimise their time needed to assist. I do need some of their help, as the L1 Team is important to represent LUNC by the passed governance proposal. No my proposal is not going to be amended now. I ask for the L1 Team’s assistance and I will be fully involved. I don’t need a big time commitment from them. I have reached out to them if they inform me they will be unable to assist I can re-evaluate, otherwise it will stay the same.
Wrong, they have a good point. I have provided these guidelines in the event my proposal passes. You might be surprised but I actually believe in this plan and I am forecasting out important information which I will include in the voting proposal itself, so I am giving advanced notice in the thread of that.
My Vision Plan is excellent but you are welcome to your own view. If I thought it would end up in a VETO I would not be wasting my time. I believe in this plan and that it can succeed. As I said I am not rushing to a vote but am allowing due consideration of the proposal and hoping to achieve enough community support to pass and move forward.
You are still missing the tree for the forest. How do you not understand that if you 15x a nothing, it will still be worth the same nothing.
Literally all that the chain desperately needs is funding. Your puny arguments about giving scraps funding from your artifical tax that is focused on burning. Is the idea to reduce supply drastically by organic means - funding the re-peg, getting more developers on the chain, getting back community trust and hype for this chain since we have something to offer for the rest of the crypto-space - reducing supply by matter of months, not milking it for 6 minimum to unknown.
How do you not get it still?
I skipped them. It’s fluff and patting yourself on the back before you have even gained one thought out response from anyone.
I’m sure Jesus tells you when the time is right. Praise be!
Your approach and understanding is wrong. It’s been 6 months with low 0.2% tax which has achieved nothing, no good burns, volumes or utility. Raising the tax will bring good results. We burned regularly 200+M per day on the 1.2% burn tax, so raising our on-chain tax we will burn a lot more and fund the chain. 15x our funding rate is not scraps of funding. You’re just an anti-taxxer. Plus in my plan we can work to achieve 1.2% off-chain burns, which can burn the supply up within a few years. You want to sit around doing nothing, waiting for unknown mystery utility to come and burn the supply for us. How did that go for the last 6 months? Not well. As I said, my plan is excellent.
You skipped reading it and complain I haven’t gotten any thought-out responses. Hypocrite. There have been well thought out responses here, but yours are very lacking. Maybe you could read it for a start. If my proposal passes that is important information, and I explained the purpose of it.
Look at the replies.
Has anyone mentioned any specific part, asked about the possible trading volume hit, asked approximations or math or anything that would give you constructive feedback?
Go up and look at my discussion with @BABA and others. I addressed those concerns in the initial post, as well as in my responses. Remember this is the final version, the first agora post was up for over a month with its own discussions. I took many of the questions there, improved the proposal and answered questions in the original post, which meant I addressed a lot of the concerns. I provided a sample calculation of how fast we can burn on current low volumes if we succeed in getting the 1.2% burn tax off-chain. I explained the new split and tax/funding rate. I’ve now given you a detailed example of how much funding we could see on the 1.5% tax. The 1.5% tax lowering on-chain volume is the same argument they made against the 1.2% burn tax. I already explained how lowering the tax to 0.2% from 1.2% did not work to increase volumes, utilities or burns as was promised. This showed we gained nothing from lowering the tax, it should never have been changed. We’ve had a six month long failed experiment and I want change.
I’ve presented a clear and credible path for LUNC to $1+ with this plan which is achievable. I’ve put time limits on the plan that if it cannot achieve the goal of 1.2% burn tax on major exchanges within 6 months the tax changes can be rolled back. I put a lot of detail into the OP based on the prior agora post and Twitter feedback to address concerns. I’m also not rushing to a vote so people are free to come and post here. I’ve contacted all active validators with available contact information to share the proposal. This is a serious proposal I am very focused on. People having less issues is testament to the proposal being good and myself having better explanations prepared for questions they may have, due to experience and refinement of the Vision Plan.
Nothing in this plan is signaling a dollar for the asset.
You fail to understand tokenomics.
If i told you there’s a billion LUNC only in the supply - would you pay a dollar for it? No use case for it.
But if you keep reassuring yourself with these self-inserted belief, you’ll surely be willing to offer guarantees?
Although your perspective did not persuade me, I will still give you a “yes” because I think what the LUNC needs right now is a dedicated validator like you who can build it seriously. We are already tired of all the dramas, arguments, and useless discussions. We need more people to build it, to turn their ideas into reality, instead of just talking about it. Keep it up!
Thanks
Tonu given the fact we have 6.85 Trillion LUNC total supply and it’s worth $640,000,000 market cap, yes if the supply was 1 billion by a burning of the supply with no garbage like a reverse split, then yes we would have easily already passed $1. We have a big community and a lot of investors and are the #70 crypto by market cap. Of course if we have a reliable way to burn the supply, and we can get the supply down to 1,000,000,000 like you said, assuming even the same market cap of 640M that’s $0.64 LUNC. I would love to see that.
My plan can definitely get LUNC to $1+ if we secure those off-chain burns. You simply do not understand and cannot comprehend the effects and how good it will be for the chain and all LUNC investors.
Let me tell you LUNC’s use case as I see it. Deflationary coin, the supply continually shrinking, good staking rewards in the long term for passive income (we can use the funding from the tax in my plan to fund the OP), and tax exempt utility on-chain. Utility is a mystery we don’t know what will come, but under my plan we have fertile ground for them to come and plant themselves (tax exempt), a passionate community that will only grow larger under my plan, and plenty of funding for projects and development.
The guarantee I offer is that I will call the plan a FAIL if we cannot achieve significant 1.2% off-chain burns within 6 months. Unlike UTILITY alone advocates, who want to wait forever for utility to burn our supply, I’m only asking for a 6 month shot. If it works we all win. If it doesn’t well it was only fair, the 0.2% tax has had over 6 months now. Give us a shot to pursue off-chain burns fully and complete it.
Thank you very much. There are uncertainties of some of the effects of my plan if the 1.2% burn tax off-chain is fully implemented when it comes to things like market makers and trading bots, but I believe the pros outweigh any possible cons and it’s well worth it to proceed forth and give it a full shot. I also am fully motivated with my plan and believe in it and how good it will be for the chain. I will be fully involved and dedicated to achieving the Vision Plan if the community gives this a shot, and will faithfully do my best for LUNC and its investors, as I see it.
All he can say is “my plan is excellent”, “massive buns will occur”. But if you read carefully, you’ll se He picked up many subjects we have been discussing (tax levels, gas fees, CP funding/OP replenish, dApps exemption, ante handler split) and wrote them into a single plan without even knowing how a DEX works. How he wanna achieve “massive burns” on-chain with a tax that high with dapps exempt from it, I really don’t know…
But hey, his plan is excellent… he is making his name and attracting a cult to his validator and pocketing 5% fees…
It sounds like you are jealous of my plan and its great features for its success, and are doing all you can in your miserable attempt to derail it. Here is the Vision Plan original agora post, made on 19 March 2023 Vision Plan to achieve $1+ LUNC posted 40 days ago, and if you want to go earlier here is my Validator Roadmap which describes the foundation for my plan, many of the governance changes and my overall vision for LUNC posted on 15 February 2023 JESUSisLORD Validator Roadmap - Vision for Luna Classic (LUNC) - 15 February 2023 which is 72 days ago. I put up a 75/25% split prop which failed and didn’t make quorum 41 days ago. Oh but I somehow I stalked you and Tonu and stole your ideas so now you must rally against my plan? You lay claim to all the ideas of LUNC and nobody can use them since you must have patented them right? Grow up you petulant child.
My plan is excellent. I have used both DEXs for swaps within Terra Station but not directly by a wallet connect. Your point was somehow everyone would leave exchanges and use a DEX, despite the fact you have to connect your wallet which many are not comfortable to do, and DEX’s have a tiny fraction of volume. The point of the plan is to achieve massive burns off-chain on exchanges, hence me repeating that over and over. On-chain alone won’t burn the supply for us, hence why the plan is called a failure after 6 months if we can’t achieve the 1.2% off-chain burn tax on major exchanges. You are a liar.
The on-chain burns and funding rate will be significantly better than we have now, and is a requirement to have the 1.2% burn on-chain to push for it off-chain, as I explained in the OP. The 1.5% on-chain tax overall gives incentives to us by burns and funding and allows participating exchanges to have a tax discount over non-participating exchanges for sending your LUNC over to sell.
I have a plan I believe in and advocate for, and people willingly delegate with me who support my views and my Vision Plan. There is nothing wrong with that. You have nothing of substance against my plan which is why you lie and bring in unjustified personal attacks. Pathetic.
It sounds like it really bothers you that someone believes in his own plan and thinks it’s great. Yes I do and I will continue to believe in this plan and advocate for it, as I believe it’s good for LUNC and its investors. Why don’t you stop trolling my thread WAGNER? All you’ve done here so far is complain because I haven’t used an out of wallet DEX before, which has no relevance to the proposal, and that you and Tonu supposedly have the patent on all LUNC ideas, which you don’t.
It’s clear that you don’t want LUNC to be successful. You don’t believe in the evidence to remove bad actors, you don’t find the presented alternatives satisfactory, and you have no interest in seeing LUNC reach a dollar. I wonder why, you should take a screenshot of the shorts you have open to see how much you benefit from continuing to harm the blockchain.
I will vote yes on every proposal that benefits me.
Try it again. I’ve never done a single future trade. You are as funny as Grizzly was. LOL
Just for the sake of the argument, I want the ecosystem to flourish and the accompanying appreciation of the marketcap, not a delusional plan written just to attract delegators. When you moonboys gonna Lear that you just can’t write off zeroes and expect it to train the same value.
This plan is not delusional, it’s a realistic well structured plan to achieve the 1.2% burn tax off-chain. I see, so you are a member of the burn by utility crowd, and an anti-taxxer. Well I’d call that delusional, how has 6 months of low tax on 0.2% worked out? Zero results, price continually crashing, poor burns, poor volumes and no utility. Waiting for the mystery dapps to burn the 6.85 trillion LUNC supply is what I’d call delusional. But you are welcome to your own view.
If you properly considered my plan you would see that burning and building can go together simultaneously, as dapps are tax exempt it’s easier for them to build on-chain with 0% tax than 0.2% tax. Also we have a 15x increase in our on-chain funding rate from the tax, so there will be plenty of money there to improve and fund the chain, and possibly incentivise dapps, even more than 0% tax. My plan caters to burning and building, with a clear timeframe given for the plan to achieve its goal, otherwise the changes can be rolled back.
Good plan but I would talk to Binance, Kucoin and top exchanges before putting this plan forward. Also need more utility at the same time, miata.io is coming up with good NFTs, future games and burning. We should encourage more like this.
