Increase Community Pool Funds

Governance & Proposals
1

This proposal does not increase the burn tax it ONLY adjusts the amount going into the Community Pool.

As we expand the services needed to facilitate the full recovery of the block chain we recognize that the current burn tax split is inadequate to meet our current and future financial needs. We expect that the following categories will need to be funded in the short/mid/long term and require more than what the Community Pool is currently receiving. All of the below will have their own separate proposals with detailed budgets.

  1. Continued L1 team funding
  2. Expansion of L1 team as deemed necessary by the community
  3. Hiring of quant team to help facilitate any repeg/stablecoin
  4. Future Sales & Marketing
  5. Funding of long term legal representation
  6. Funding of Dapps to facilitate utility for the chain
  7. Unforeseen expenses that will come up from time to time
    8.Investments into blockchain startups with the contractual obligation that the project must be built on Luna Classic Block Chain

The time to build financial reserves for expenses is before you incur those expenses. We feel that time is now.

We propose that the burn tax be split with 20% going to the Community Pool and 80% to be burned.

This would stay in effect until the chain is at a point that gas fees fill the Community Pool and there will be no shortfalls in funding the critical infrastructure of the chain. Our goal is to eliminate the burn tax completely within the next 6 months.

If the community votes in favor of this proposal, we will meet our financial needs.

If the community rejects this proposal, we will be faced with the lack of ability to advance and protect the chain without additional private funding.

Lastly, Binance does not take issue with this adjustment. Their issue was with minting new LUNC.

{
“subspace”: “treasury”,
“key”: “BurnTaxSplit”,
“value”: “0.20000000000”
}

2 Likes
2

Horrible idea. All this does is signal “hey there’s free funds here come take it” and grifters come. Hence the current situation with L1, TGF, TR etc.

3 Likes
3

What’s the point of having more funds if it all goes to the same team who so far delivered nothing but empty promises?
HA-HA
No thanks
NO WITH VETO

6 Likes
4

The community pool has plenty of money for dev work. It doesn’t need to fund pointless nonsense…

The chain is in a dysfunctional state currently, where resources are squandered on non-essential “work”.

Counter-points:

  • the L1 team got more money than they deserve, given they’re still grossly behind schedule
  • expanding the L1 team is “out of scope” according to their own admission (chain “maintenance mode”)
  • there’s literally no reason to be hiring quants while the whole USTC repeg situation is up in the air
  • sales & marketing is entirely pointless, it’s pretty much the most egregious waste of money imaginable
  • legal representation isn’t needed, LUNC is a global decentralized chain (not a US-based initiative)
  • dApps can come and build by their devs providing sweat equity in exchange for first move advantage
  • “unforeseen expenses” sounds like “slush fund”… there’s no better way to waste community money

Nope. 90/10 is more than sufficient for the current clown show… at least until the situation is resolved.

Oh how lovely, the only tangible generator of hype/fomo and you want to remove it. :man_facepalming:

1587931999115

False dichotomy. There’s more than enough in the CP to fund normal non-wasteful dev work. :upside_down_face:

All in all, this is a patently obvious cash-grab. LuncDevelopmentFund (author of this prop) are tight with Steve’s L1JTF and the Terra Grants Foundation overall (Zaradar stakes with LDF, and LDF donates 50% of their validator commission to the L1). I know y’all wanna set up your buddies from the TGF with more community money to plunder, but this isn’t gonna slide under the radar. People are waking up to the theft and grift being committed here. You want to tear liquidity from the chain and gift it to your friends under the guise of pointless and unnecessary endeavors like the list above, while nuking the remnants of the burn tax which is the only thing that’s brought positive price action to the chain so far.

It’s funny how transparent and brazen this attempt and theft is, yet I suspect there’ll nonetheless be a horde of sockpuppet “supporters” down in the comments below… and this reply of mine will be mass-flagged into oblivion and hidden by the usual suspects who profit immensely from plundering the community pool. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Also, before I end this reply, I wanna add this as well: “legal defense” is absolutely pointless for LUNC. The chain is a decentralized global asset, the only people who need legal defense are the ones who are doxxed and live in the USA, because Uncle Sam doesn’t mess around and will ruin your day if you play with crypto over there! Coincidentally, people from the TGF fall under into this tiny group (Marco, Ed Kim), and people from LDF (Chrissy, Brian). So who exactly benefits from “legal defense”? Not LUNC holders, that’s for sure (most of us aren’t from the US, and of those who are the vast majority aren’t doxxed).

Kindly find another chain to leech like parasites!

Overall verdict: NO WITH VETO :-1: :-1: :-1: :-1: :-1:

grifters gotta grift

14 Likes
5

Whoa! There seems to be a self appointed centralization gradually forming there unnoticed. Good eye Rabbi. This has to be discussed further by the community and a more desirable solution must be implemented.

7 Likes
6

Lunc burning has already been crippled with minimizing the tax to 0.2% and the disaster with the
parameter change that happened to make binance burn even less.

Now you want to take away even more, NO WITH VETO

9 Likes
7

More money for people who don’t bring anything of value to the chain…just more grifting and money… No wonder why this chain is dy1ng/getting lower prices every day… Nobody wants to be rich …nobody thinks long term…I advice people to VOTING NO . Scammer GIFs | Tenor

1 Like
8

This is really horrible. Any reduction in the burns in the tax split is just a stepping stone for you guys to remove the burn tax altogether. Though I support an 80/20% split it’s almost a NO from me on the proposal alone due to your clearly stated intention. I’ll have to consider that further.

Haters of the burn tax who want to remove it altogether is something I strongly oppose. It looks like their main motivation in adjusting the tax antehandler is a way for them to achieve their goal of no burn tax. This is what I said when I voted NO on the 50/50% prop, that it was part of a plan to reduce burns to zero. I was absolutely correct.

So if this passes in the next 6 months you will want 50/50%, then the removal of the burn tax altogether with a 0% burn 100% CP split. This is Zaradar’s terrible idea of “parity” with no burn tax.

6 Likes
9

YES
I believe that increasing the funds in the community pool is a necessary choice. Currently, when the community cannot sustain itself, the only way to increase funds is through burning taxes. However, I do not think this is a long-term solution. I hope that the community can establish an L2 team as soon as possible to bring sufficient profits to the community.

I see many people resisting the idea of increasing the community pool due to concerns about scammers. This creates a vicious cycle. Without sufficient funds in the community pool, it is difficult to attract excellent developers and builders, leading to various scammers appearing. We cannot stop the development of the community just because there are scammers. Isn’t this a typical case of “to stop eating because of fear of choking” (giving up entirely because of a bad experience or fear of a similar negative outcome)

Many people are envious of others who receive funds from the community pool. They would rather see LUNC become a zombie chain than have someone profit from it. Such a mentality is the biggest joke. How can we hope for LUNC to succeed with this kind of attitude?

Finally, I disagree with the viewpoint of “completely canceling burning taxes within the next 6 months”. I hope you will carefully consider this issue. Based on the current situation of LUNC, it is not yet time to cancel the burning taxes.

10

I would suggest we push 1.2% burn tax for Binance and all exchanges trading LUNC.

4 Likes
11

there is a mechanism that send funds to CP its called “GAS FEES”
STOP using burn tax “donations”
from 3568 (1,2% burn tax ) to MINT what was suposed to burn, this chain is going downhill
Community needs to harmwrestle the 1,2% burntax and remove the stupid MINT code.
CP can be funded by increasing gas fee and its split

12

Any removal of burn tax has to go through a vote. Jesus always followed through with his word. We expect you to vote YES. If you don’t then we see your real motivation. Peace be with you.

image
image1117Ă—594 62.7 KB

13

Helping fund L2 development will help us get too having enough transactions in which the gas fees cover the filling of the CP pool. Currently gas fees are not adequate for what we need. Also per your other comment there is no minting that occurs. Binance does not have an issue with increasing the amount sent to CP. In fact they approved the 50/50 split. I trust Binance over everyone. Thanks for your input. Keep the ideas coming!!!

14

No more funds for the grifting force.

Yeah, to add more ghost devs

You don’t align with the community true wishes.

I’m voting no with veto.

3 Likes
15

ya right, lets go ahead and instead of burning supply give more funds to useless people that bring 0 value to the chain.
utility onchain can get whitelisted through governance and have 0 tax , thats best it can gets.
step 1 - Create the so called utility
step 2 - get rewarded for this creation

right now is money “wasted” to fund and see nothing
Also gas fee can fill the CP just increase it

1 Like
16

Don’t hijack a thread for that left handed agenda, k0de. Ecops server is plenty a soap box.

pepe-the-frog-matt-furie-hate-symbol-racism-anti-defamation-league-4chan
pepe-the-frog-matt-furie-hate-symbol-racism-anti-defamation-league-4chan813Ă—484 132 KB

But to the proposal: Split it. 50/50. Equal opportunity. Be it Hobbitses or obscure danish Ändersœns - whomever shall do the work and revive this doesn’t have to do it without community support.

Paying a fair share is only natural, lest you be the descendants and preacher equivalents of original Messiahs people.

Regardless, I vote yes.
Burning doesn’t create lasting developments or relations between chains and loved dApps.
Enticing new growth on a supporting chain does. New users engaging organically.
Terra was never about big corporations. It was about the everyday man, the community, the money, the opportunity, in a mostly healthy and sane community.
And as we attract what we bring in - we have to start improving.

17

No L2 devs will come build on a dysfunctional chain like LUNC which has an L1 team that tries to destroy the chain’s immutability just to bail out a corrupt dApp like Terraport and its sleazy owner(s).

You’re couching your proposal’s true purpose behind a smokescreen - the whole point of this prop is to funnel more money into the CP for TGF ghouls to drain. There’s not gonna be anything left after y’all bleed it dry with your nonsense “marketing budgets” and “legal representation”.

Also @Luncdevelopmentfund I like how you fled from the Academy server after being tagged and called out. And how you refuse to address any of my points here, in this thread, despite responding to other people. That’s very, very dishonest… and cowardly to boot! You know you have 0 counter-arguments because the grift you’re trying to help here is plainly obvious at this point.

Do better! At the end of the day you’re still a validator, you should hold yourself to a higher standard.

Signed,
Your friend, Jebediah the Bloodbag!

1682634106531033

5 Likes
18

Hear hear!

19

I voted in favor of the 50/50 so I’ll vote yes for this one. The economy the way it is now and heading, people need funding. There aren’t enough funds to do what we need to do as a Blockchain to progress the way need be… audits, building in general, security protocols, etc that can be built within and for the community. It’s becoming clear the more time goes on what intentions are individually imo. Keep pushing, thanks.

20

Aggressively, no with the right of veto. (no comment on suck proposals).