But people who vote yes, I don’t understand it, it being understood that it will never happen, but can you ever block addresses just because they don’t do what you tell them to do? what exists to do the crypto world? It would be really nice if you advertised yourselves differently and yes, it would be nice if all exchanges implemented the tax, but it’s just unlikely and might as well act as a disincentive for trading on lunc itself, plus it needs help from a lot of other players. Direct your efforts elsewhere.
- Yes, those who disagree will not be able to trade LUNC. This was not the case when last time they offered exchanges to include 1.2%, as they were waiting for users from exchanges who would turn on 1.2%. Now it turns out completely the opposite situation. Who will turn on - will get new users. And those who don’t turn it on will lose users.
- Yes, we think 0.2% (0.3% if we take into account the CEX commission) is not very large and few people will feel it, but thanks to this small value, the total number of coins burned will increase
- If everyone refuses, then Binance will be ready to accept everyone, since she understands that she will earn more than she will lose
- This is a good question that we are going to clarify with the CEXs, in any case we will have to contact them to discuss the details, but for now we first need to get to this stage in our plan
This a very dangerous play.
Please be aware what you are doing. You are going for a “my way or the highway” route.
Not only could we lose Binance burns we could lose new investors due to limited on/off ramps.
I’m not against burns at all. But holding gun up to CEXs is a hard way to go.
How about you approach CZ first, see if he gives a thumbs up. If he says no back off a bit.
We assume that Binance will support us, they have no reason to refuse us.
We have given this a separate column in our proposal, and of course we have taken this into account.
Unfortunately, we are not players of the same level that we can directly contact CZ or Binance. The only thing we can do is to draw the attention of the community to us so that we can reach them together
I support this proposal.
But it would be desirable to increase the incineration tax.
It’s a CLEAR NO from me on this proposal. First this is seeking a 0.2% off-chain burn. I believe we should do the 1.2% burn tax again if pushing for off-chain IMO. Also our tax is currently split 90/10% so we only burn 0.18%, so to match the off-chain push you would need to ask only for 0.18%.
The primary reason it’s a CLEAR NO from me on your proposal is the blacklisting. Your method of convincing exchanges is not good as it centers on blacklisting. The community just voted to strongly reject the concept of blacklisting wallets by a near unanimous vote. You would be asking for that code to again be revived and applied to exchange wallets.
Here’s a quote from your Medium article which was posted on 23 April 2023 (your original was posted on March 24):
"3. Our solution for safely enabling “OFF-chain” burning
We suggest using a “partial blocking” system for dissenting exchanges.
If the exchange refuses, its addresses will be blacklisted, after which sanctions will be applied against the exchange.
Specifically, by sanctions, we mean disabling the ability to receive incoming transactions on the exchange’s wallets.
This is the best solution, as it harms the exchange specifically, not its users. Users will be able to withdraw their coins, but no one will be able to deposit them, and this deprives the exchange of one of its main functions.
Also, thanks to this, users will not be able to switch from one exchange to another for the sake of a lower commission, thanks to this, the exchange that turned on the burning will not lose its users."
I have read your reasons why to do the blacklisting, and how it’s technically different from what TCV proposed and was rejected, but none are convincing to me.
I believe my plan is far superior, it has a better tax (1.2% off-chain, and 1.5% on-chain), and has a better mechanism to achieve exchange support. Blacklisting can turn them all off. The very concept is against our chain. We shouldn’t be blacklisting anything. My plan is to encourage and use incentives to gain off-chain support. That’s what is good and that I believe will work properly, as I detail in my plan: Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+.
hey, I have read your proposal, It makes me wonder, why it would be considered as a spam here? Maybe try will less images ( remove images of Binance, Cats etc.) This is the most decent proposal that actually would work in favor of Lunc Holder’s.
i have made a similar suggestion in the past and agree with the proposal completely. Some might worry that exchanges will not support LUNC/UST anymore but it needs to be remembered that these exchanges are businesses in the end. It’s not that the business has to pay the fees out of their own pocket like Binance does at the moment. If they don’t support the burns they will just lose customers as some other exchange will support the burns. Yes Binance is the biggest exchange and it would suck if they won’t support the burns but I don’t see why they wouldn’t, especially if the blacklisting of other exchanges wallets will be implemented.
As far as the burn tax goes I don’t agree that the 1.2% tax will lower volume. There is no evidence it will. Very much the opposite in fact. A 0.2% is not enough unfortunately. We will sit here forever, burning away small chunks of the supply. Anything between 0.8%-1.2% sounds reasonable to me.
1.2% off-chain, and 1.5% on-chain - I highly doubt it will be do anything. We have already seen some of the results of the changing tax rate )) Why pour from empty to empty? Unless radical steps are taken, nothing will change - check the price last 7 months and the amount of transactions.
Kraken is hardly an exchange?
If we get the exchanges to adopt the 1.2% burn tax it will be amazing and do much more than a 0.2%. 0.2% is a failed tax with terrible results. It’s been in place for 6 months with poor burns, poor volumes, little utility and crashing prices. I don’t know what more “results” you want to see?
This is best proposal for USTC repeg support. If cex not support we can do with dex + this proposal.
yeah , like wrapped luna will allow this to happen. lol lunc is gone
Can I be honest?
No I don’t fully read or understand all props. I skim them.
As do lots of “norms”.
What kills a great prop for me is overcomplicated or a part I don’t understand or don’t agree with.
So 1.5% burn with whitelists. Yes. 100% on chain tax helping us while we show the community we are committed to burns. Once the influencers get hold of that information we start to fly.
What kills it is everything else. Now I’m not saying that the rest is bad. It’s just all lumped into 1, meaning the average Joe has to make multiple decisions and I feel that’s why a prop fails.
Talk of tax splits, CEXs adoption, forks etc etc.
The way I personally see this passing.
First off find common ground with 1% max.
Put up prop 1.5% on chain tax and whitelist. Lets say it passes because people can see we need it.
Discussions start on a new split no sooner than 30 days after the 1.5% to see the new volume and reaction.
Prop goes up, 70/30 70-burn 15-each OP and CP. Fails No.
New prop after discussing. 80/20. Passes.
Discussions with Binance and CEXs about on chain viability and what is required.
7.from there we keep building on it.
I think blocking any wallet or CEXs is not the way but I do think you and 1% max validator have some common ground. And yes I am staked with 1% and HCC.
Like Ive said I’m not a Dev or validator or anyone important. But if you keep it simple it will move. Do it bit by bit. Find common ground with validators who share the same vision.
If people stop putting extra things in props they are more likely to get a thumbs up from basic investors. It will also give others less to disagree with each prop.
@Seany22 I understand people skimming plans, that is the reality. But your version is more complex than mine. 1% Max Fee does not believe in 1.2% burn tax. He wants 0.2% with using blacklisting to enforce exchanges. I don’t agree with such a low tax or the blacklisting. We can agree to disagree. There isn’t much commonground.
My Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+ proposal is simple:
- 1.2% burn tax off-chain
- Same burn tax on-chain + 0.3% to fund the community pool (1.5% total)
- Exempt dapp smart contacts so utility can build and is incentivised
- Offer incentives to exchanges (internal wallet whitelist + deposit exemption from on-chain tax)
- Push for off-chain burns united as a community, with the L1TF and myself assisting reaching out
- 6 month time limit
If we succeed in 6 months at 1.2% off-chain burns great, if not the tax changes can be rolled back. That’s my plan boiled down.
take a look at my proposal. instead of taxing volume, you try to increase it and burn more as a result. let’s sell something instead of begging.
I think rather then pointing a gun at exchange, If we can seek advice and a common ground to work with them would be great, so same proposal without a gun pointed, would do. ofcourse the first thing would be the community getting behind it first
Again my friend you have put too many stipulations into one prop.
I agree with everything except the 6 month limit. I feel in an emergency this would really hurt us.
Everything else is bang on. For me at least.
I can see this prop passing if it’s written as simple as that in the proposal with a more detailed link for those who want to scrutinize.
I would say remove the heavy time constraint and start at 60 days. This gives us ample time to assess the tax change and make a change if everything goes balls up.
But again too many factors in one prop and 1…just one thing someone doesn’t agree with brings the whole prop down.
I believe you can do this, and god knows right now we need this.
Once people see until we become the chain of AI or gaming or whatever we grow to be. We are in a very grey area of a meme or utility chain. We need to embrace the meme coin to our advantage.
We are following BTC…where right now a burning meme coin identity would be paying us and hopefully getting cash in for the Devs.
Whatever we do 1% max needs to understand blacklisting any wallet is dangerous path for any defi. Customers pick you, you don’t pick your customers.
Could you please add a url to your proposal to take a look?
As for this proposal. I do understand the allure of blacklisting as a pressure tactic but the benefits don’t seem to outweigh the risks!
In practice, we are saying to exchanges you’ll get the volume of non-participating in the scheme CEXes.
Thinking it rationally our biggest volume (and therefore impact) exchange (Binance) is already doing the equivalent of a 0.08% burn, so we would be doing all that (off-chain trading centralization) for an additional 0.12%!
The 6 months is how long we push for the 1.2% off-chain. If we succeed the plan obviously continues indefinitely. If we don’t succeed in that time 6 months is a good shot to achieve off-chain burns within that time (last time we only got 3 weeks on-chain). This is why TLDR’ing props can lead to some issues not explained well enough. We need the 6 months so we push for a good amount of time to achieve the goal. The last thing we need is the prop to pass then people to try to overturn it within a few weeks. We might achieve the 1.2% off-chain quickly, I don’t know, but I wanted to ask for 6 months to give it a real shot and a full run.