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
1 Like
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.
4 Likes
here.
I would be happy if you leave feedback
blacklisting = no with veto
1 Like
I support this proposal as an initial step, the ideal option is to force exchanges to move away from MEMO and create their own wallet in the blockchain for each account, this will solve the burning issue once and for all, and in the future the community can change the percentage of burning if desired after discussion and voting.
2 Likes
No for me.
4 Likes
This proposal is delusional(especially section 7) and will lead to removing us from all major exchanges. No with veto, it’s detrimental.
3 Likes
While I support the idea of forcing CEXs to act instead of keeping us hostage.
I wonder if the following can be added/modified:
1.Setting the tax at 1.2% instead of 0.2% for better volume of burning.
1.2% ,in my opinion, is not a deterrent to prevent trading.
2.Further, splitting the 1.2% as:
ON CHAIN:1% going to official burn wallet and 0.2% used to replenish oracle pool.
OFF CHAIN(CEX):1% going to official burn wallet and 0.2% kept by CEX as incentive for honoring our burns on their platform and being on board with our proposal.
3.Whitelisting developing apps and not imposing any taxes on them so that the argument of on chain development/utility impact is addressed.
Regards,
Aditya Garg
2 Likes
Essentially everyone kinda wants a 1.2% burn…why is this not implemented?
6 Likes
Seany, I will leave new proposal soon. 
1 Like
Partial blocking ≠ Full blocking
1 Like
Any validator that backs this needs burning to the ground
3 Likes
Very good proposal. Lets go for it.
3 Likes
If Binance charges me for transactions made offchain due to proposals like these, I would stop carrying out said transaction. Which would be a loss for the exchanges and the blockchain would lose more users. On the other hand, I am against blocking exchange wallet addresses if they disagree with something. In addition, this centralizes the blockchain even more and is closer to a regime or dictatorship.
NO WITH VETO!..
Prima meglio parlare cz almeno se lui accetta ok maggior parte lunc sono su binance, la gente usa binance perche si sente piu sicuro io sono uno quelli , io preferisco piu vendere miei lunc che passare kucoin dove mi viene nel mio paese di fare certe cose
many commentators are very worried about the welfare of binance and in particular CZ, I doubt very much that they have lunc or ustc in their portfolio, maybe binance pays you? if not, then why are you concerned about how the exchange will react to this proposal to implement burning on all transactions within the exchange that are made outside the blockchain.
My proposal to force the exchanges to switch to individual addresses for each account will solve all the problems with the burning of lunc and ustc and will allow you to change the percentage of burning without asking the consent of the exchanges.
2 Likes
For a start, it would be nice if the exchanges would start burning off-chain - would just start) Even with the present tax rate, it will be perfect and the percentage can be increased later. I am more than sure that the community wants off-chain burning.
3 Likes
The best proposal for USTC support - stop USTC distribution.