Fund for Development and infrastructure

Fund for Development and infrastructure


I am not a developer nor am I a cryptocurrency expert. I am one more investor, who fell in love with the idea of ​​a digital currency that would be carried forward with the efforts of the community. In the early days of Luna Classic, I saw brilliant minds and members emerge with diverse ideas, some extremely revolutionary and others not so much. I was very excited to see such a strong community, pushing towards the same goal. After several months, I began to see how that community deteriorated, with mixed opinions and members who insulted and even criminalized those who held opinions different from them. It seems to me that this is the secret of our community, we are many and we all have our opinion and over time respect was lost. In this proposal, which I am here to present, which is for a development and infrastructure fund for our community, I wanted to ask everyone to settle down and start to respect each other, to listen to whoever thinks differently and discuss, but always respecting each other. And I mean everyone, including myself, I have also been angry in various circumstances for hearing barbaric things on Discord or Telegram. This is not everyone against everyone, this is Luna Classic against everyone, we want this coin to be in the top 10 and we must be together more than ever for this to happen, I repeat, we all want the same thing. We are all here for this project to be successful and no type of abuse or aggression is proactive.


If we all agree on something, it is that developers are people who work to eat and support their own families. I am not going to mention names since there are many teams working in this chain and we have to encourage many more. All cryptocurrencies at the beginning keeps a percentage of its own coin to be able to finance its development. For example, Luna 2.0 kept 30% - 300 million Luna. We do not have that opportunity, so it is urgent that we create a fund for developers and infrastructure maintenance. Today, unfortunately, we have low volume and a price that is deteriorating day by day. So we have few alternatives to finance ourselves. I heard many proposals to withdraw funds from the community pool as well as the famous 4 million dollar wallet. What I see is that we have short-term solutions that are not going to give us any kind of long-term support. You invest in an asset when you see long-term growth or potential.


Luna Classic is burning 0.2% of all On-chain transactions. I understand that everyone has the fantasy that the way to 1 dollar is to burn coins with a tax. But unfortunately that is not the way. The path to 1 dollar is through development, utility, volume, and a greater amount of investment. Many propose to increase the tax on burning, which seems extremely harmful to the chain. My proposal is that instead of burning 0.2%, we direct it directly to the community pool until reaching an amount of 10 million dollars. It sounds like a lot with the price we have today and the volumes we have today, but as our price increases and our volume increases, this will be accomplished quickly. I leave you a table that clarifies the speed in which this fund could be completed.

Actual Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Volume Per day
Volume Per Month
USD (Price 0,00015) 180.000 450.000 900.000 1.800.000
Per Year 2.160.000 5.400.000 10.800.000 21.600.000
USD (Price 0,0005) 708.000 1.770.000 3.540.000 7.080.000
Per Year 8.496.000 21.240.000 42.480.000 84.960.000

When this fund reaches 10 million dollars. The community may decide to continue funding this fund or redirect the tax to continue burning as in the past. Who would have control of these funds, it seems to me that we have excellent leaders in our chain, and we could take advantage of Dr. Edward Kim with his Grant Program (If he agrees). He would be responsible for complying with the payments and the control of the development teams that the community decides to finance.

Developer team:

As mentioned above we should not commit to any developer team. If they are interested in working at Luna Classic, they must submit a proposal with a detailed budget for their work.

This proposal must detail:

• Number of developers who will carry out the work

• Category of developers that your team has, I mean the experience that each one has since the hour of a senior developer is not the same as the hour of a junior

• Number of hours needed to carry out the work

• Cost per hour of each developer, according to their experience.

• Start date and end date of the development.

• Detail of development stages

This budget or work proposal should be presented in Agora and later in Terra Station Governance to be voted on by the community. This way we can have all kinds of developer teams working on various projects at the same time.

Final reflection:

I understand that the burn tax fanatics are going to hate me. I ask you to please open your mind and temporarily accept the urgence of these funds. The continuity of the technological development of this chain is much more important than burning one million more or less. With development, we will burn much more and, as I said before, it would be provisory until reaching 10 million dollars and we will discuss whether to continue generating funds to develop or start burning again as in the past.

Final mention:

As a community we should not have favorites, but as a member of the community and without having any kind of affiliation with Terra Rebels. It seems to me that we owe them our apologies for the treatment given in recent days, they have been working for the chain for free for months and have the best of intentions. I look forward to their budget and I hope we continue working together, it has been an honor to spend the last few months with you and I wish you an excellent end of the year. If I am not respecting some kind of community rules or procedures, I apologize, I am not a specialist, I am just looking to contribute my bit and if you agree with this proposal I will publish it soon. I accept any type of constructive criticism, those are the ones that matter, this chain will grow by listening to ourselves. I also wanted to point out that I am not a technician, and this is a written proposal that does not require any type of code to be implemented. I apologize if something is not understood, I do not speak English very well

I personally apologize to all the developers and members of this community for the aggression they received. To a large extent, we are amateur investors who don’t know much about what we are talking about. Let’s keep building together, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity.


Price will drop if we stop burning. It is crucial for the purpose of using community and oracle pools. So I think the idea to split the tax while raising it a bit( to 0.3 or even 0.25 if we believe that v23 will bring the price up) is less agressive.
Why are we so attached to 0.2? Who said that 0.3 or 0.25 will cause more harm than 0.2?


Thank you. I was going to make a discussion myself but as you have done I will not.

I agree with the sentiment but I don’t think this will pass governance unfortunately.

Would you consider splitting the 0.2% tax? So 50/50? 0.1% of all burns goes to the burn pool and 0.1% goes to the community pool?

1 Like

I think that the tax is harmfull for our chain. Price doesn’t increase because of the tax. Price increases because of Utility. The higher the tax, less the volume and less the dapps that work with us. We shouldnt increase it more Its very dangerous.

1 Like

The amount of money the community has for development isn’t the lacking issue ~ a core dev plan is what we lack. And, I think the coding (implementation) of that core dev plan (simplistic and stable) can easily be completed for the amount currently available in our pool ~ and that pool is growing as I write and you read…

Burn Lunc with a burn-tax (add some into the community pool before they burn) and develop the Terra Classic core (with the community pool) so third-parties find Terra Classic attractive and fund dapp development (utilities) in the Terra Ecosystem…

The community shouldn’t need much money for the limited development the community is responsible for (the core).

So, think more core dev ~ less fund raising. If the ETH wallet is accessible to the community, burn it all. Also, we should be burning all staking rewards to lessen the division of the market cap and increase the value of each Lunc.

“I think that the tax is harmfull for our chain.”
Ok, agree. So your idea to fill the pool and pay the devs ?
"Price doesn’t increase because of the tax. Price increases because of Utility. "
Cool, I also like this argument. What is the reason why the price increased in August-September? Why did it instantly drop after we changed the tax? Yeah, it is not the tax and not utility, it is people’s expectations connected to the simple and overhyped idea to burn through tax.
“The higher the tax, less the volume and less the dapps that work with us.”
How much less for 0.2 compared to 0?
“We shouldnt increase it more Its very dangerous.”
Most medicines are also dangerous. You just have to take them wisely.

1 Like

The Tax is irrelevant. Most of us will be buried & gone before any Burn Tax will make much if any difference… Use the money for something that will make a difference. Pay the Devs… Let’s get this dog and Pony show moving in a positive direction. Taxing is not the answer for moving to the future of lunc. Development and Utility of the chain is.


So do you agree we can use this burning tax for development and Utility? You are the first one that agrees. I thought I was alone.

I apologize for my English, perhaps this is the reason why you do not understand the meaning of written by me. The tax is already here, it is more relevant than ever. Remove the tax and we will not fill the pool, transfer the tax completely to the pool and we will cause a wave of anger from the completely uneducated part of the community, which are the majority(look polls on tax). The price will drop(we already saw it when moved from 1.2 to 0.2), respectively, in the oracle pool and the community pool will be less $ for validators and developers. The question is purely in the practical level of the current problem and not about idealistic slogans valid for a normally functioning chain.

I agree 100%. Using those funds to pay devs would be a Major positive step for the chain. It is telling the crypto world that we are serious here…
The tax crowd need to face reality that a burn tax will take decades to make a dent in the supply. Multiple decades if Lunc can even survive that long with any elevated tax level that will chase developers away to more friendly building grounds… No developers will continue to pay elevated tax rates just for the privilege of being on the chain.

Hey man. As I said above I’d be grateful if you’d consider half tax for burning and half for funding. I don’t think fully cutting out the burn tax will pass governance.


I understand your consern I will analyse every proposition everyone makes before posting the real proposal.
About Half tax we wont get the funds we need right now. Rebels need 2.3 million per year. We need the full tax if we increase in price rapidatly we could return to burning in no time.
0.1% for burning is nothing even 0.2% is nothing. Tax was always a tale, we will never burn a big ammount of supply. Thats why the community must get education about this. They think the tax works and is good for the chain.

At current volumes .1% tax would more than cover the $2m required.

I’m glad you have considered my comments. Honestly I have spoken to validators and they would be concerned with removing the tax entirely, therefore I think this would be unlikely to pass as is.

I’d encourage you to reach out to validators for input to consider this.

I am in favor of burning the staking rewards to speed up the burn.

The burn tax cannot be changed to do something else. That would only lengthen the burning time.

1 Like

Thanks for raising this.

Please consider splitting this text down into separate documents/proposals.

I think the concept of re-minting all burned lunc into the community pool is a big enough decision to discuss alone. I think a second agora on how the funds are actually deployed, what proposals look like, how people who get paid by the chain are held to account e.t.c, would break the discussion down and make conversation flow easier.

You have detailed things here that will require development e.g. limiting re-minting based on fiat value. Given parameters can be changed relatively quickly, why have you set an arbitrary ceiling the protocol can find? And why do we need to spend community money on coding this?

On the parameter change to re-mint all 0.2% that is burned, I think if this went to governance vote simply as a parameter change to re-mint all burned coins; if approved, the community would be recognising:

  • The chain needs to be self-sustaining, and requires a steady revenue stream to support this
  • For long-term volume/user growth, investment is needed in L1 development, to enhance the value proposition of the chain and make it attractive to customers.
  • That long-term volume/user growth should be the priority and that all efforts should be directed to this end. Meaning that, for now, the burn tax is parked and all users taxes will go to directly improving the value proposition we can offer.
  • That this is a tactical pivot, and there is an expectation that long-term strategy will include reducing circulating supply through some means other than tax

I support changing a param proposal to re-mint all burned lunc, and send them to the community fund. I support it because of my views listed above. I fully believe that investig in our product/chain is the best course of action right now. We are, currently, literally setting fire to funds when we are cash poor :frowning: Lets move from a burning chain, to a building one (with funds)

I support not increasing the tax level itself, to keep the cost of doing business on our chain as cheap as possible during this period

But again, I would like to see this go through separately, and a concurrent discussion spun-off on the MUCH more problem of “how do we actually spent it”.

I’m not even going to read the whole message. Just the thought of going back to mint everything burned makes me sick.


for “remint everything that was burned”, read “send all the tax on new transaction to the community pool, rather than burning it”

Stop burning, start building!

We can build while we burn ~ both stability and scarcity are required to attract users and developers. 101.

I agree something must be done to better fund the community pool.

In order to constantly fill the public pool, it is enough to transfer it and any other income to staking.Staking rewards will allow unlimited time and sufficient funding for any necessary projects and developments.In this case, the public pool will not be depleted or stolen.The first task of our community is to maintain and replenish the public pool.And it is the staking of the public pool that allows you to solve all these issues.