There is one more solution though it’s a little bit more wild, but nothing that can’t be done.
Gas fees will have to be changed to USTC instead of LUNC
Everything in the CP and OP will have to be converted to USTC
Payments from CP and OP will have to be made ONLY in USTC
This will ensure that ONLY the supply of USTC is increasing and not LUNC.
You gotta sacrifice one coin for the other.
You can also take some useless coin from 21 other coins and do this as well.
But this is the only way out. Otherwise this graph will look like this forever and LUNC to $1 will remain a dream since it is not mathematically possible to achieve that while coins are continuously being released into supply.
As I said before, it’s like a hamster running on a wheel. It’s not gonna go anywhere.
So, you gotta choose between LUNC or USTC cause the other coins people might not wanna use if they are not supported by major exchanges.
But this is the wilder idea. The more decent ones are the ones before this.
P.S. I am sorry to say, but all burns which have happened in the last one entire year, was for nothing.
Cause we essentially released all those coins back into supply by the current gas fees and minting/tranfer of coins to CP+OP and then taking it out again, all the while burning the market cap.
Mathematically, what we have done till now, is stup(idity.
The trajectory of the fees accumulation in the CP will increase provided the on-chain transaction volume remains the same (on average). Just like it did when we increased from the old fee values (green) to the new one (yellow)
We are not taking a hit! Taking funds out of the CP is called an investment
The funds that end up going into the community pool are part of the already circulating supply. So moving them between wallets doesn’t affect the circulating supply. The circulating supply is increasing (via mint) on a daily basis because of the chain 2% (ish) inflation.
To stop that 2% inflation permanently (stop inflationary mint) the Total Supply needs to come down (via burns) and meet the Circulating Supply therefore making the coin go into a true deflationary trajectory (<0% inflation).
Currently, we are in a pseudo-deflationary trajectory due to the coins being taken out of circulation via
Therefore in the following statement:
A. We definitely shouldn’t stop the burns if we want LUNC to turn into a true deflationary coin
B. We cannot stop the chains core inflationary mint process unless we reach total supply. We can make it appear negative by making sure we attract people wanting to stake their coins and therefore taking them out of circulation at a rate > 2%
I knew that at some point of time, I would have to explain it like this, so I saved it up:
Hamster 1 - Binance Hamster 2 - Cremation Coin
1.When H1 starts running, everything is still fine, even though both of them are running in circles
2. The price of LUNC goes high
3. H2 wants to jump in. So, H2 jumps in and you can see what happens
4. This is because the price of LUNC has already gone high by then
5. 21 days and when the OP is withdrawn, B(O)OM!
No. The burned coins go to the burn wallet and are removed from the total supply and circulating supply and cannot be accessed again. Those coins are not released back anywhere.
The gas fees and funding from the tax are direct transaction tax transfers of existing users LUNC and USTC on-chain to the community pool and oracle pool. There is no minting.
You are wrong and are spreading false information trying to say burns are meaningless and that there is secret minting. There isn’t StakeBin | Terra Classic.
You’re trying to muddy the waters to attack my proposal. Go make your own thread in the general section if you want to talk about burning not being real and secret minting.
How is there 2% inflation and how is there minting? I don’t see that. What are you talking about?
I knew that the community wouldn’t receive this news well. That’s why I wasn’t saying it. If you read your previous discussions in Agora, you can verify whether I have hinted at this or not. You can check my comments there.
What do I do if this IS THE TRUTH? Do I go and tell the community that what they are doing is basically reducing the price of the coin? You want me to go and tell every single influencer and validator that there is this? How? Even you are not being able to take the news even though @godoal is saying it indirectly. Even he doesn’t wanna say it.
The fact is that LUNC isn’t a deflationary coin by my calculations.
It’s an inflationary coin.
I have been trying to tell you this from the last 3 days (and potentially for the last 3 months) indirectly without saying it here publicly, but now you need to know properly.
This is absolutely correct.
I am not talking about the burns.
You have to understand what the antehandler is doing (again).
It’s a TRACKER that tells the store to transfer coins from the ADDRESS YOU ARE BURNING THE COINS to the ORACLE and COMMUNITY POOLS.
Read this properly and understand this properly.
This is HOW COSMOS WORKS.
The Total Supply does NOT change. Only the Circulating Supply does.
If you wish to counter this then get a Cosmos developer here and ask him whether I am correct or incorrect.
No it doesn’t it splits the 0.2% tax and 90% goes to the burn wallet and 10% goes to the community pool. It’s not taking the burned coins out of the burn wallet and minting them. You’re making things up.
What exactly is it that you are showing me? You are showing me a merge PR conversation?
Calm down… Calm down. I know you are angry and I know you wouldn’t take this well.
If you wish to continue doing this, I said it last day that I have absolutely no issues if the price of LUNC goes down any further.
I am a developer and I can keep building with low prices. It’s much much better for me.
All the best.
P.S. For the third month (and third time), the price of LUNC will never cross 0.0002 like this if the community is involved in collusion and enmity between community members thinking that every one is out to destr(oy everyone else’s proposal.
I will quote this 3 months later again. And I won’t say a word about taxes and gas fees till then on anyone’s prop.
Check the Circulating Supply going up in the official graph here if you do a rough calculation of the annual increase divided by the circulating supply then * 100 you get the percentage of inflation in our chain. Will be a lot less if using the reduced circulating supply; I used the full numbers provided on the site (omitted locked-out supply) to get the absolute maximum.
NOTE: The graph is not up to date. You can grab the latest CS values from the fcd here. As a matter of fact, I didn’t realize how high our CS has gone recently until you mentioned it and double-checked it…so here are the latest Total/Circulating Supply values:
It’s from this v1.1.0 upgrade proposal when the tax split antehandler was introduced V1.1.0 software upgrade proposal. If you’re a developer go read the code yourself about the tax split and go ask other developers to confirm your speculation. There’s nothing to suggest coins from the burn wallet are being minted back.
The chart you are referring has a completely different value than Coinmarketcap:
It is outdated but the correct value (if they would continue tracking it) would have been the “LUNC (unofficial)” line. Have a quick read through the screenshot that @arunadaybasu paste earlier (I think it’s from the Binance Academy) in regards to what Circulating Supply is.
Therefore the CoinMarketcap value is correct because they have deducted from the current circulating supply (current) the locked-up (delegated/staked) coins. The value I extracted earlier was the current chain CS.
If you track the current CS value (careful that is in uluna) over 24h you will get a nominal daily increase (mint). Then multiply that by 365 (days) to get the annual coin increase. Finally, divide by the (full) CS number and multiply the result by 100 to get the inflation % per annum. That’s the current annual max chain inflation.
If you want to get the inflation % of the effective CS. Use the CMC value on your division above which deducts the staked coins.
(You can use the same approach to calculate the inflation rate of other coins that have not reached yet their ceiling, like Bitcoin, etc.)
Yes I know but that’s not a mint, that’s a re-allocation of a portion of a transaction tax. A mint is creating money from nothing, issuing new coins. This is a simple partial allocation of a transaction tax, according to the tax split. It’s not a mint.
Can you show the values in your calculation and why you consider it a “mint”? How is there an annual coin increase when the circulating supply is 5,889B versus 6,853B total supply?
@nghuyenthevinh2000 can you please explain to Jesus what is a keeper and a store?
Though I dunno how to explain to him what an abstraction is. But you are Cosmos dev, and you teach other fellow Cosmonauts in your country how to learn Cosmos coding, so try to explain this to him.
Also, since you know how Cosmos works explain to him how no coin is ever destroyed or created.
I don’t understand the point you are trying to make there tbh.
It is already known that would happen as per the passed proposal 11360. Bottom line, a proposal was raised for that “split capability” where 71.38% of the community took part and 94.82% voted yes.
@JESUSisLORD The text you have Quoted contains how to calculate it yourself rather than rely on my (or anyone else’s) numbers.
The proof that there is a (natural) coin mint, is in the increase of the Circulating Supply value (first step in the quoted text). Super easy check: refresh the chains CS page and compare the two values where: Minted = ((Last Snapshot) - (First Snapshot))/1000000
.
