Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+

[JESUSisLORD]

@godoal

Is the plan to raise a proposal for each step and we tick it off as we go along?

The plan is laid out here in the OP:

@JESUSisLORD

The governance steps of the proposal are:

1. Text signalling proposal for the Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+, with all relevant details according to the flowchart, authorising L1 Team involvement, and putting up for vote for community approval of the plan.

If this proposal passes, the next 3 proposals follow shortly after simultaneously or as quickly as possible:

2. Parameter change to adjust on-chain tax to 1.5%.

3. Parameter change to adjust the tax split to 80/20% (from 90/10%). This leaves a 1.2% burn tax (6.67x our burn tax rate) and 0.3% to the community pool (15x our current funding rate).

4. Text proposal to exempt dapps from on-chain tax, as proposed by dfunk on agora.

So first text signalling, then the next 3 proposals simultaneously or quickly.

The final whitelisting internal wallets and exempting deposits to exchanges occurs only after we have their agreement and prior to launch.

@wagnerdalcin

Can you share some metrics ?!?

If you check the Dashboard in Terra Station at the time LUNC pumped from $0.00008 to $0.0006, you can see on 4th August 2022 volume was 59B LUNC per day, rising to 661B on 1st September, and rising to 3 trillion, then coming down to 173B on 16th September. So the price of LUNC going up 7.5x caused a 50x in on-chain volume. So like I said, the on-chain volume rises A LOT when LUNC pumps.

@Evgen

We can back tax to 1.2%. But another points no working.
And we need pool for repeg. Any burns useless more, waste of time, no effect

No burns are not useless burning reduces the hyperinflated LUNC supply and is mandatory for us to get to $1. My plan and Redline’s does not contradict he can keep working on USTC re-peg while we burn LUNC.

@arunadaybasu

Yes you have mentioned this. But how are you gonna do it?

My plan involves implementing dfunk’s proposal here [Proposal] Exclude Smart Contraction Transactions from the scope of Burn Tax.

If there needs to have more done for them to be fully exempt then this needs to be discussed and considered more. At this time my plan only details putting in place the exemption as proposed by dfunk. If there are other mechanisms, like a whitelist that dapps can be added on, I’m fine with that. We can always do more subject to governance. My proposal will only cover dfunk’s proposal. It will be voted on as one of the tax proposals after the initial signalling proposal. If there is more that can be done for dapps in a reasonable way, that can be discussed and considered, but it would be separate or additional to my plan.

[arunadaybasu]

This is the exact time at which the last burn by Binance happened:

This is the result of that:

Now, I dunno whether I am looking at this incorrectly or nothing is happening by burning.

The YouTube influencers are not even addressing this otherwise they will lose all their subs.

You tell me yourself what exactly are we looking at.

[JESUSisLORD]

@arunadaybasu

Now, I dunno whether I am looking at this incorrectly or nothing is happening by burning.

The YouTube influencers are not even addressing this otherwise they will lose all their subs.

You tell me yourself what exactly are we looking at.

Let me tell you why this is happening.

When people see Binance only burning 1.2B LUNC every month, this is only 40M per day, barely above our on-chain tax. We used to burn 200M+ per day on the 1.2% burn tax which is 6B per month.

People see 1.2B and rightly think it’s going to take forever to burn the supply. 1.2B per month to burn our supply would take 475 years. The low burn is actually bad news, despite it being good Binance still burns for us. But really these small burns are not enough.

People are also reminded that we lost 50% of Binance’s burns due to minting, and that 1.2 billion could have been 2.4 billion if the community didn’t approve minting and increase it by two separate governance proposals.

We need a serious burn rate that brings hope for a recovery within a timely manner. The only way we can achieve that is securing the 1.2% burn tax off-chain on major exchanges buys and sells. With this we can burn 2+ billion daily, and as the volume increases so does the burning rate, bringing more hype like a cycle that feeds on itself bringing further price rises and volume and more burns. We can burn the supply within a few years if my plan succeeds.

You watch the FOMO if the community approves my plan and we get any major exchange/s to announce their support for the 1.2% burn tax. It will go straight back to the hype of the old days and more. It will be amazing. This is the goal of my plan and what I am hoping for and believe in trying to achieve.

[wagnerdalcin]

@JESUSisLORD

If you check the Dashboard in Terra Station at the time LUNC pumped from $0.00008 to $0.0006, you can see on 4th August 2022 volume was 59B LUNC per day, rising to 661B on 1st September, and rising to 3 trillion, then coming down to 173B on 16th September. So the price of LUNC going up 7.5x caused a 50x in on-chain volume. So like I said, the on-chain volume rises A LOT when LUNC pumps.

Shedding you some more light to what really caused the on-chain surge

Proposal for the 1.2% Tax Parameter Change

Summary This proposal initiates the tax for all on-chain transactions as first described in proposal 3568 (for the 1.2% burn) and proposal 4159 (distribution of v22). Taxes will be charged and burned for on-chain activity such as sending between wallets and smart contracts that interact with the chain. This parameter change cannot enforce taxes on off-chain activity (like trading on CEXs); however, depending on the mechanisms that these trading exchanges use, such as moving from hot to cold w…

[godoal]

Indeed, sorry for the unnecessary question

[arunadaybasu]

Yes but my question is different. It’s not like we did not cross 0.00016 in the last 6 months.

We did. Just that it is now back to 0.000105

What I’m trying to say is that this market cap/supply logic isn’t working cause after burning, people are selling and the market cap is reducing.

So the maths isn’t working out till now. Otherwise $LUNC would be at 0.0002 permanently if this logic is actually mathematically true.

[JESUSisLORD]

@arunadaybasu

Yes but my question is different. It’s not like we did not cross 0.00016 in the last 6 months.

We did. Just that it is now back to 0.000105

What I’m trying to say is that this market cap/supply logic isn’t working cause after burning, people are selling and the market cap is reducing.

So the maths isn’t working out till now. Otherwise $LUNC would be at 0.0002 permanently if this logic is actually mathematically true

Steady but slow burning with an estimated burn time of 400+ years does not bring the required hype, market sentiment, hope for revival for new investors. We need a real burn rate with less than 10 years to the target, where people feel like LUNC is a real investment that will accrue in value in a reasonable amount of time. In my view any burning of the supply is good, but to see the price rises we want we need to go after off-chain burns fully like I propose in my plan.

[wagnerdalcin]

@arunadaybasu

Now, I dunno whether I am looking at this incorrectly or nothing is happening by burning.

The YouTube influencers are not even addressing this otherwise they will lose all their subs.

Influencers aren’t addressing it anymore, validators that promised to burn 50 to 100 percent of their fees aren’t doing it anymore. Even the impact of Binance buyin back LUNC with fees isn’t significant.

[arunadaybasu]

There is one more thing I wanted to mention - I get the fact that you are technically “burning” the “supply” when you are burning, but do you realise that you are also burning the “market cap” along with it?

Logically, if Binance had NOT burnt that amount that they burnt, this price wouldn’t have fallen. It was increasing and all of you holders could see that it was increasing just 2 days back.

Not only did we burn the supply, we literally burnt the money that the coins were tied to. Which means we lost the market cap.

You’re not understanding why DK could do this with Terra and Luna and it would remain exactly at the required market cap/supply:

Cause he IS the one who had the Reserves AND the Supply. He could control and balance the supply with Terra coins.

So there was no extra minting for anything. Something was being minted to burn something. And something was being burnt to mint something.

In our case right now, we are just burning something without minting anything in exchange.

So if LUNC is being minted accidentally after burning it in these burn wallets, boom, price falls again. This is exactly what is happening. We don’t have Terra coins to push the supply down any more if by chance it increases.

This is a race in which we are swimming opposite to the flow of water.

Instead of increasing market cap, we are trying to reduce the supply of 6 trillion coins which is either getting minted, or the order book is filling up with low value sell orders if by chance the price increases.

[wagnerdalcin]

@arunadaybasu

Instead of increasing market cap, we are trying to reduce the supply of 6 trillion coins which is either getting minted, or the order book is filling up with low value sell orders if by chance the price increases.

I guess you hit the nail on your second line. But what causes the downtrend. Maybe validator fees and staking rewards being dumped… who knows

[arunadaybasu]

Obviously. This is Comsos. Nothing is “transferred” in Cosmos cause that’s not the method in which you program/code anything on Cosmos. I mean, you can, but you’re not a Cosmos developer then.

You mint and burn.

That’s how we transfer. This is literally how IBC works.

So, OP and CP coins are minted increasing the common denominator in the equation of “market cap/supply” even if you have burnt the supply before that.

It’s like making a hamster run on a wheel. It’s not going anywhere.

Cause +/- net result is zero. Net distance travelled is zero. Net burns is zero. In fact, it’s in minus after the minting.

There is 3.3 million USTC in the CP right now. A few days back when I had checked, it was 3 million. Obviously, no one is sending money to CP in USTC. It’s getting minted. And you can see the result of that in the USTC charts. Cause 300,000 got minted cause of the taxes currently.

It’s happening cause of the taxes that you guys are putting on it. Obviously, again. Cause that’s the ante handler which “tracks” how much is to be burnt (and hence, to be minted in CP+OP). It’s literally the work of the ante handler. Ed had told us all this long back. What the ante handler actually does. He told us not to do anything with it otherwise minting will go out of control. But no one will listen.

I hope this makes some concepts clear as water.

Basically what you are doing right now is burning the market cap and minting the supply.

[nikolson41075]

@arunadaybasu

So there was no extra minting for anything. Something was being minted to burn something. And something was being burnt to mint something.

What burned when 7 trillion luna was minted?

[Vendrugo]

The price would go up if 50% of the holders stake the token. But everyone is waiting for something to happen that allows them to sell and not be trapped within a protocol

[godoal]

I suppose the question is, which type of Tx Msg is invoked when the BroadcastTx function is used. Did you trace back your transaction in finder by any chance to check how it was decomposed?

When I did a large scrape on the chain the only distinct tx types I came up with were the following:

[arunadaybasu]

This is Cremation Coin’s account:

https://finder.terra.money/columbus-5/address/terra14l46jrdgdhaw4cejukx50ndp0hss95ekt2kfmw

It doesn’t work using a contract. No one does that unless absolutely required. You can check account of other coins/dApps on the network.

Also, are you gonna tax them or not tax them?

Cause this is not an app, this is a token, but they are one of the highest burners already. So what’s the point of putting tax on them if they are already burning second highest to only Binance currently?

And this point remains anyway:

@arunadaybasu

Basically what you are doing right now is burning the market cap and minting the supply.

See try to understand this properly.

You have say 1 million LUNC. It is worth something right? So, let’s consider it’s worth 0.0001 per LUNC.

Now if you burn 1 million LUNC you are also burning 0.0001 x 1 million DOLLARS.

Now, till now this process is absolutely fine if it has remained so.

The technical process is that after this 0.2% (or whatever the taxes are right now) will be MINTED in OP and CP.

So, what you have at the end of the day is:

0.0001 x 1 million
Minus 0.0001 x 1 million

---

$ 0 USD

---

Plus 0.0001 x 1 million x 0.2%

---

1 LUNC

Now, take the actual volume = $ 25 million USD

And let’s do the calculation again:

($25 million ÷ 0.0001) x 0.2%

---

500,000,000 LUNC

---

You are basically minting half a billion LUNC in a day theoretically.

Now, if you wanna know what happens when the above happens, you can do the maths too:

Price of LUNC = Market Cap of LUNC ÷ Supply of LUNC

Burn 500,000,000 LUNC:

Price of LUNC = Market Cap of LUNC ( - 500,000,000 LUNC x 0.0001)
÷
(Supply of LUNC ( - 500,000,000 LUNC) + 500,000,000 LUNC)

Price at below 0.0001

P.S. Sorry for the formatting. This is markup.

[godoal]

Do you happen to have a transaction they have performed using the address you pasted on the previous post, finder does not list any Txs on the bottom pane.

Based on this core chain code I would say that BroadcastTx is the proverbial SEND button of a constructed transaction, rather than a delegated one via a Smart Contract.

If that is the case then they will get taxed with the chain programmed tax rate (currently 0.2%, 1.5% based on this proposal) provided the coded transaction type used before the BroadcastTx was invoked is taxable (if not a msgexecutecontract).
i.e. one of the following at present:

• MsgSend - Sending from one wallet to another
• MsgMultiSend - Sending from multiple senders or to multiple receivers (taxed once)
• MsgExecute - Bundled dApp and smart contract transactions (each bundled is tx is parsed and taxed)
• MsgSwapSend - Swapping, then sending to another wallet
• MsgInstantiateContract - Creating a new smart contract
• MsgExecuteContract - Smart contract transaction

Where the last one “MsgExecuteContract” is the one under discussion for being removed from taxation in Step 4.

I understand the dilemma.

[JESUSisLORD]

@arunadaybasu

There is one more thing I wanted to mention - I get the fact that you are technically “burning” the “supply” when you are burning, but do you realise that you are also burning the “market cap” along with it?

Logically, if Binance had NOT burnt that amount that they burnt, this price wouldn’t have fallen. It was increasing and all of you holders could see that it was increasing just 2 days back.

Not only did we burn the supply, we literally burnt the money that the coins were tied to. Which means we lost the market cap.

No this is not true.

@arunadaybasu

So if LUNC is being minted accidentally after burning it in these burn wallets, boom, price falls again. This is exactly what is happening. We don’t have Terra coins to push the supply down any more if by chance it increases.

This is a race in which we are swimming opposite to the flow of water.

Instead of increasing market cap, we are trying to reduce the supply of 6 trillion coins which is either getting minted, or the order book is filling up with low value sell orders if by chance the price increases.

There is no minting. See the supply here: StakeBin | Terra Classic. You can break it down by every hour if you want. We are reducing the total supply.

@arunadaybasu

So, OP and CP coins are minted increasing the common denominator in the equation of “market cap/supply” even if you have burnt the supply before that.

It’s like making a hamster run on a wheel. It’s not going anywhere.

Cause +/- net result is zero. Net distance travelled is zero. Net burns is zero. In fact, it’s in minus after the minting.

Wrong. There is no minting. Of the 0.2% on-chain tax, 90% is burned and goes to the burn wallet, and 10% is sent to the community pool. This tax applies to LUNC and USTC transactions, hence you see LUNC and USTC accrued in the community pool. We also have gas fees which split half to the community pool and half to the oracle pool.

These are low transaction taxes which contribute to burning the supply and funding the chain.

@arunadaybasu

It doesn’t work using a contract. No one does that unless absolutely required. You can check account of other coins/dApps on the network.

Also, are you gonna tax them or not tax them?

Cause this is not an app, this is a token, but they are one of the highest burners already. So what’s the point of putting tax on them if they are already burning second highest to only Binance currently?

And this point remains anyway:

Why would I want to tax exempt another coin? No. As I said in the proposal in the OP, my plan involves tax exemption of dapps according to dfunk’s proposal, which is exemption of smart contracts. That’s it. If they want anything more than that it can be up for discussion in a seperate proposal.

Under my plan the on-chain tax will be 1.5% with a 1.2% burn tax and 0.3% funding rate. We will push for 1.2% off-chain on exchanges. We will do the tax exemption of smart contracts, and exchanges who agree to implement the 1.2% burn tax off-chain on buys and sells will receive internal wallet whitelisting from on-chain tax and deposit exemption from on-chain tax. That’s it.

[arunadaybasu]

You have NEVER seen the Community Pool account have you?

https://finder.terrarebels.net/columbus-5/address/terra1jv65s3grqf6v6jl3dp4t6c9t9rk99cd8pm7utl

You have also not seen any one of the accounts the funds have ever been sent to.

https://finder.terrarebels.net/classic/address/terra10w7dmaj6nph8ta6ehwa70pzqw08tjgjle45xxq

https://finder.terrarebels.net/classic/address/terra1mk7qfn9u6qn2afeytlsruk7ew8emxst3cw0c5f

https://finder.terrarebels.net/classic/tx/EF9CAD11F74B165D9F7909D66EB866C530B823AC1980261A279F25A44FAADBCB

This ISN’T A TRANSFER OF ANYTHING.

THIS IS COINS BEING MINTED.

@godoal

Do you happen to have a transaction they have performed using the address you pasted on the previous post, finder does not list any Txs on the bottom pane.

[JESUSisLORD]

@arunadaybasu

You have NEVER seen the Community Pool account have you?

Rebel Finder

This is not the community pool. The account you showed has 19B LUNC and 78M USTC. The community pool has 900M LUNC and 3.3M USTC StakeBin | Terra Classic.

@arunadaybasu

This ISN’T A TRANSFER OF ANYTHING.

THIS IS COINS BEING MINTED.

No coins aren’t being minted. StakeBin | Terra Classic
Every hour the supply reduces, see the total LUNC supply.

[godoal]

@arunadaybasu,

@JESUSisLORD is not wrong here either. Cremation is a coin not a dApp, however, if dApps do make use of the BrodcastTx and construct their own transactions then they will get taxed as normal (if the type is taxable). I suppose they will have to adapt by making use of contract execute for their internal op mechanics! I wonder how many they are though and if there is a way to measure them.

Also, there is no minting any longer in LUNC (as of 11360 if memory serves). That address is handling pool and other distribution functions that is why its number is on the B rather than the M which our CP holds (i.e. check contents of CP at a certain block height 12615305) :

@arunadaybasu

You are basically minting half a billion LUNC in a day theoretically.