Stupid people do not understand that it is better to pay 1 % tax and be confident in the future of a huge increase in the asset than not to pay anything and fear a token scam.
And further. The larger the money supply, the greater the risk of collapse. Most speculators are plankton trying to trade on the news. They treat trading like gambling. Plankton is the food of the whales. Need to gradually release the bags of whales
hasn’t lunc already lost over $30 billion… you all need to grow the F up and stop scamming.
can anyone tell what good has come from any lunc props by the luna controlled validators?.
except to pay their own scam over and over. while building on testnets and mirroring every move $wLUNA makes
$LUNC === SCAM
$LUNA validator === scammers ( 12/may/2022 prehalt anyway.)
Anchor 20% exploits. 3ac , ftx , jump, voyager terra, let’s not forget the past, basis and anyfi
People need to learn to behave themselves instead of being abusive and showing their level of intellect(of a 10 year old kid, and ironically asking others to grow up).
I am not a LUNC validator and this proposal does not have a cost associated to it.
i hope your not talking to me ? @gargaditya
Low tx fees is the only thing LUNC has going for it at the moment. You yank that up and we’re no different than any other Cosmos chain out there. Also, any money ending up in the CP will just be leeched out by TGF and its ghouls, so I’d say that’s a hard NO WITH VETO.
As to the OP: we have no way of getting Binance to implement off-chain burns. Bribing them isn’t gonna work.
One needs to understand basic demand and supply.
With supply over 6 trillion and cexs holding majority volume, one cannot just keep talking about developing without reducing supply.
Further, one cannot preach cexs to implement this voluntarily without them having an incentive to do so.
You may call it “bribe”, but there is no free lunch in this world.
Investors would want to see price rise, else interest in this blockchain will eventually frizzle out.
BTC is going green but LUNC is nowhere to be seen,thanks to the huge supply.
I strongly feel that validators have no interest in seeing overall LUNC price rise-end goal seems to be just have people stake and their nodes make some money.
The tax is useless if there is no movement on the blockchain. That only makes the whales not want to do onchain transactions and prefer to use exchanges. What you need to do is set a fairly reasonable tax and increase the dapps and token utility present on the blockchain.
Of course, it is necessary to reduce the money supply. But how to motivate the exchanges? And this is only one side of the problem. Let’s say we have an agreement with CEX. After 3 months, the volume that participates in the auction will decrease, demand will exceed supply, the price will climb north. It’ll go up quickly. How can we motivate whales to bring the asset to trade? And not just withdraw, but in an organized manner, without jerks?
Do you have a better solution?
I only said a 2x on gas fees, which is 50 to 120 LUNC per tx. That’s $0.0063 (0.6 cents) to $0.015 (1.5 cents) per transaction. That is still very low.
Well I have a plan to achieve off-chain burns. It involves raising the tax which applies pressure to internal wallet transfers (aside from Binance who are exempt), incentivising with wallet whitelisting and deposits to the exchange being exempt from on-chain tax. CZ has said the 1.2% could work if all the exchanges implement at the same time. I have a plan for simultaneous adoption/launch. See my plan flowchart below. I believe it’s achievable. We’ve been sitting on 0.2% for 6 months with no results.
Gas fees were raised 5x recently… it’s not the time to raise it again!
You’ve been told many times your “vision” won’t work.
It creates two different taxes, one non-enforceable. It will drive more people to CEX.
You don’t have nothing to offer CEXes in retribution of complying with the overtaxation.
You are against bringin utility (I even remember you asking what utility people were talking; you as a validator should know and work toward it).
You oppose any UST repeg initiative, which is by far the best way of bringin back confidence, visibility and utility to the chain.
Just my two ventas about your vision
The 5x gas fee raise occurred over 3 months ago, and in my view there is room for a further 2x increase. The raising gas fees again is not part of my Vision Plan, but is part of my Validator Roadmap I believe we should get done at some point.
Yes I’ve seen your opinion on my plan and you are wrong. There is one tax, the on-chain tax of 1.5%. Of this there is a 1.2% burn tax component with 0.3% to on-chain funding. This will be the only tax in effect.
Part of the plan is by community effort and whitelisting the exchanges and offering deposits to their exchange exempt from tax, they will put the burn tax component of 1.2% burn tax. Yes we do have something to offer them.
Firstly, the on-chain tax only applies to their internal on-chain movements, not exchange buy and sells. If they want their internal wallets whitelisted from 1.5% tax they can accept our offer to burn 1.2% off-chain for us. Any loss of on-chain volume to exchanges is more than fair if they burn 1.2% off-chain for us. If we can get the big exchanges to have consensus to do this simultaneously as I lay out in my plan, the the price of LUNC will absolutely sky-rocket. All the volume is on the exchanges, and the path to $1+ will be secured. Any worry about a possible small loss of on-chain volume is irrelevant to the massive price rise and overall huge volumes that would come off-chain and on-chain due to the renewed interest. When LUNC pumped to $0.0006 the on-chain volume was massive, and when we get good price rises the on-chain volume also increases.
You are wrong I am not against utility coming on-chain, but I am against relying on utility burning our supply for us. That’s hasn’t worked for 6 months and is not going to. If you read my plan utility is tax exempt so they are free to build on-chain. That’s a good incentive for them. We implement dfunk’s proposal here on agora about it.
Yes I oppose any USTC re-peg for very good reason which you have already seen my comments.
We need the ability to create projects on the network, a site through which you can do this with the payment of a commission for minting tokens, prices from $ 1000, this is also security, etc. … use of minted tokens on the network, supplementing with a token tax of 0.10% of amount for any manipulation of that token, regardless of the taxes set by the owner of the token, thus the tokens play a positive role on the lunc network, burning the circulation coin to a certain amount (and later switch that tax to the liquidity pool (you can supplement, improve vision of this proposal)
The proposal places 1.2% uniformly on and off chain.
Further,given the 0.2% commission that cexs get to keep, I think they will definitely be on board and implement 1.2% tax in a short span of time.
This looks like a good idea.
[EDITED/page does not allow me to edit original post]
Increase burn tax to original 1.2%.
One of the key factors for the LUNC Blockchain success is reducing the huge supply.
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.
-Split the 1.2% tax as - 1 % going to burn wallet and 0.2% being utilized to fund the Oracle Pool(helps alleviate the pool running dry scenario).
-Dapps building on the LUNC chain are NOT taxed(exempt/whitelisted) to promote building on the block-chain.
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 a generous 0.2% of each transaction and sending the remaining 1% to the official LUNC burn wallet.
Weekly burns(every Monday at 00:00 UTC) would be sent to the official LUNC burn wallet.
NOTE: Technical details on implementation would require assistance from DEVS involved in the project. I do not have the knowledge on the code changes which would be needed to implement the above.
If we are asking the exchanges to apply the 1.2% burn tax off-chain you also need the 1.2% burn tax on-chain. This means you can’t then set on-chain tax only to 1.2%, and split 1% burn 0.2% CP. Because then you are only burning 1% while you are asking exchanges to burn 1.2%. That won’t work IMO. This is why I proposed in my Vision Plan to do 1.5% on-chain tax 80/20% split with 1.2% burn tax 0.3% CP, then push for exchanges to adopt the 1.2% burn tax off-chain using the incentives and plan I have prepared Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+.
Yes yes yes let’s burn it all