Incentivizing Centralized Exchanges To Implement Burn Tax

Increase burn tax to original 1.2% on-chain.
(Off-Chain)CEXs which honor the 1.2% tax on their individual platform(for ALL buy/sell/convert options) get to keep 0.2% as incentive for supporting the LUNC blockchain, effectively helping burn 1% on each buy/sell/convert transaction.

One of the key factors for the LUNC Blockchain success is reducing the huge supply.

1.It is proposed to set the burn tax at 1.2% to speed up burns on-chain. The previous 1.2% tax never got to run for a sufficient amount of time to evaluate the full impact.

2.Further, it is proposed that Centralized Exchanges which come on board and honor the 1.2% burn tax on their platforms(for ALL buy/sell/convert transactions) would be incentivized by getting to keep 0.2% of each transaction and sending the remaining 1% to the official LUNC burn wallet.
This would need to follow a defined process where the CEX wallets first get white-listed and weekly burns are sent to the official LUNC burn wallet.

1 Like

Na’ fren’. Taxation be theft without representation.
Artificial burns don’t make for organic movements.

Matthew Perry is that you?

Hahahhaha :rofl: Vegas is that you?

1 Like

@gargaditya I support returning to the 1.2% burn tax, but having an overall tax of 1.5% on-chain (0.3% goes to chain funding). Then exempt dapps from on-chain tax and approach exchanges to adopt the 1.2% burn tax off-chain on buy/sells and give them internal wallet whitelisting, and deposits to their exchange tax exempt if possible for all who agree. Arrange a simultaneous launch. I have put this all together in my Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+ see below for the details. That is the way I believe it should be done. Nevertheless as I support raising the burn tax I support any reasonable initiatives to do so.


The tax is needed from the sale of Lunc. Those. when exchanging Lunc for something else. 1% will be enough. In the dialogue with CEX, you need to find the arguments. For sure, they are the largest holders. They need more than we need downsizing. They must go for it. Plus, they can control increased demand by gradually shedding their inventory. If the situation requires it, there should be no pampas. The mere news of the introduction of a sales tax stimulates the growth of trading volume.

Up txn fees instead.

Is there any statistics on the volume of transactions?

A 2x on the tx fees would be fine, bringing it to about 50 to 120 LUNC or so per tx. That will bring more to CP and OP by the distribution module. I support an additional raise in the gas fees which is part of my validator roadmap. But that’s a side issue for more funding, aside from my Vision Plan the core premise is to achieve off-chain 1.2% burn tax adoption.


I don’t remember Jesus turning wine into water.

You are more worried about artificial deflation of the token, than actual survival of the chain.
Burning with a tax has no use, other than sensationalism so your sheep don’t run out and unstake.

Sorry to butt in, but removing the excess money supply is not necessary to make the price go up. Such a volume of coins is a bomb, on which the foundations are being built now, the building is planned to be built. The heavier the structure, the stronger it will explode. The current price is due to the volume of trading more than an order of magnitude smaller than the total volume. Any significant increase in price can provoke investors to start taking profits. There may be more supply in the market than there is demand. This is fraught with a sharp collapse with further panic. The increase in prices, in this case, is fatal. It can lead to disaster.


Token burning along with staking are the cornerstones for increasing the value of LUNCs.


A very poor translation.
In short, I wanted to say that the rise in price without the destruction of the money supply can be fatal. And price growth should be controlled.

Artificial v. organic burning.
The tax should be used to actually make the chain a place where organic dApp ecosystem could flourish and thus burn off the supply via actual engagement in the chain vs forcing a tax many times higher than our own source of income - txn fees - just to see the supply diminish, but we still not getting anywhere to bring in development and interest and a fully functioning chain.

1 Like

The tax I propose is 1.5% on-chain with 80/20% split with 0.3% to fund the chain and 1.2% burn tax. Dapps are exempt from on-chain tax to not harm utility coming on-chain. Then we pursue off-chain 1.2% burn tax. If we can succeed, which I believe we can, using the methods I laid out in the flowchart, we are on the pathway to $1+ LUNC.

Of course that will be the complete recovery of the chain with massive burning and reduction of the supply, huge price rises and interest, our chain will flourish and all investors will be rewarded. It’s a simple and realistic plan, unlike relying on unknown dapps to burn our supply, or a legally risky possibly chain-fatal experiment being USTC re-peg, which I oppose.

You are welcome to your own view but I will certainly be continuing to push for my Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+, which I believe is best for the chain, and I’ll wait until the right moment to implement it for when the community is ready.


Why do people and firms make bank deposits and buy bonds?
To make money.
Burning tokens and staking together allow you to increase capital.
In addition to these incentives, you can develop and implement any other applications and developments using the LUNC token.
Tax and staking will not interfere with you.
But if you do not understand such simple things, then I am not going to argue with you.


I don’t how do you not understand it after two comments that explain it to you in detail:

With the current situation in the CP and OP pool - this chain is getting weaker.
Not only do we not have money for development, we do not have sufficient funds in OP pool to attract more users. More users=more volume

Yet, you would tax a user and instead of fund the chain, so it can actually attract more users, meaning more burns, more volume, faster price appreciation, and you would burn the funds.

Like, how short sighted and ignorant one has to be to think this has any sort of merit to the chain?

Since the price isn’t appreciating without a demand for it.
If you burn off 5 trillion, yet have 0 demand for it - your bag is as worthless as now.

Basic tokenomics. Please, educate yourself before piping up.

1 Like

Agree, burns are needed to drive the stuck price.
CEXs have majority of the volume as compared to on-chain. An incentive would lead to adoption.
Each investor has different price targets and should be able to take profits as price rises and supply reduces-this is an economics fundamental.
Building on the chain can go in parallel to drive value- 2 separate things.
Actually, building value should not be focused on reducing supply(no such concept of ‘organic’ burn)-rather one needs focus on innovation to drive adoption/utility.
Wonder why people pass personal comments on ‘Jesus’ or ‘getting an education’ just because others don’t agree.

1 Like

Deflationary tokens focused on supply reduction through organic engagement.

If you look at the actual txn fees that @JESUSisLORD does not want to pump up much, yet is ready to increase taxes ten fold.
Txn fees feed CP/OP.
Burn tax just burns.

That is the issue with the mentality - while talking of fees that are high (this chain has one of the lowest fees actually), but fees actually do something useful, but taxing even higher simply to burn without added value to the investor - it makes little sense since the value isnt added.

Volume is what burns the most. Our volume daily is around a 100m usd.
Yet it used to be, pre-crash, around 8-10 billion USD daily.
Focus on utility first, and the organic reduction in supply will happen with an exponential rate vs. artifical taxation of the few who use the chain.

Without taxes, we will soon have little to develop the utility of the chain.

1 Like