Increase Community Pool Funds

Yes from me. CP needs increasing and there is no minting. Good see the usual shortsighted clowns on here with their negativity.

And by the way the tax will go at some point.

Yes sirs, take all the moneys you need sirs

1 Like

We’ll see about that.



You are correct, and not my intention to hijacked this thread. But Rabbi concerns are valid IMO, and it’s something I think the community should ponder about and come to a consensus. With that said let’s end this conversation with this, and not interupt the OP proposal. See you in the servers. :pray:

I’m sorry to say, but zaradar was totally right about it. How do you wanna attract utility to a chain that charges taxes that a “sister” don’t. O Lu in your dreams, Chris.

Well I wouldn’t call LUNA a sister to LUNC, that’s your narrative. More like the mother who abandoned her seriously injured child and left her as an orphan? What about that? Or maybe the husband who committed adultery with another woman and abandoned his gravely sick wife? LUNC was rejected by its own creators and developers when it needed them most, who went on and made their own new coin. LUNC and LUNA are not sisters, they are not “Twin Moons”. I reject that notion. LUNC was rejected and abandoned. Now LUNC is chosen and favoured. Good thing I will express my vote NO WITH VETO on a burn tax removal. We attract utility by tax exempting dapps, like you’ve seen me advocate for in my thread.


100 %

By “sister” chains, I was talking about all other Cosmos chains. Broadening your wide vision is gonna do you some good, really!

Well I don’t support Alliance integration, merging with other chains, sharing our staking rewards, altering our oracle pool rewards structure etc, if that’s what you’re talking about. If I wanted to invest in other Cosmos coins then I would buy them. LUNC is my focus, and LUNC is its own unique coin with a unique history, and will have an awesome story for its recovery. I already have my vision for the LUNC chain, which I’ve posted about here in my Validator Roadmap.

1 Like

Staking is not the only utility a chain can have. Staking is the only utility LUNC has right now. Staking rewards doesn’t go to the CP. Do you plan to tax that as well?!? I guess you do, since you advocate for DApps tax exemption, your only income of resources would be on-chain direct tx.

I find it funny how open you were to copy-and-paste a lot of discussions had over agora to your “vision plan” (specially dfunk’s proposal to increase gas fee, increase tax and direct to distribution module, dApps exemption) but you refuse the very best plan to reduce LUNC supply (UST repeg and reopen of the swap module) and refute any other arguments that try to show the many holes in you plan (different tax on-chain and off-chain, no clear explanation on how you will convince and compensate CEX to adopt you “vision”).

Staking is great and should be kept good for the long term. We can do this by funding the oracle pool, by raising the tax like I propose.

Dapps don’t really contribute much to on-chain funding. They can be tax exempt so we can raise the tax and get some proper burns and funding and push for off-chain burns.

I don’t know why that’s funny, I supported dfunk’s proposal when I first saw it on agora, you can see my posts in his thread. It’s a great way we can not hurt utility on-chain while allowing us to raise the tax. There’s nothing wrong with open collaboration, especially as I clearly stated the dapp tax exemption was from dfunk, and I’m sure he wants his proposal to pass also, and I hope it does sooner or later. It’s part of my plan that it should be done as it’s a great idea. Also the foundation of my plan was posted here on 15 Feb JESUSisLORD Validator Roadmap - Vision for Luna Classic (LUNC) - 15 February 2023. Also, I always supported the 1.2% burn tax and opposed its removal. It was a terrible mistake to remove the 1.2% burn tax.

I didn’t refuse the USTC re-peg I voted Abstain which contributes to quorum, as I don’t believe in his plan but didn’t want to directly oppose it. I made a detailed multi-paragraph post about it on Twitter if you want to see the reasons why.

Also I refuted the arguments against my proposal because they were not sound or convincing arguments against the plan. There is no issue having a different on-chain and off-chain over all tax. The 1.2% burn tax is the same on-chain and off. We add 0.3% on-chain to fund our chain, and this also is designed to tax incentivise participating exchanges when we tax exempt their deposits from on-chain tax. There is a clear explanation in my plan for how to achieve the off-chain 1.2% burn tax, I don’t know how you can claim otherwise. I detailed clearly how to convince exchanges in my proposal thread. I even made a flowchart for it. How can you claim I did not explain how?

I’ll explain it again for you. We whitelist their internal wallets and tax exempt deposits to their exchange from the 1.5% on-chain tax so participating exchanges are tax incentivised for people moving LUNC onto their exchange to sell. This and community pressure is an important part. Then we have the L1 Team approaching, the question we ask, keeping a private list of exchanges responses, negotiating and achieving consensus, and a simultaneous launch. All of this is carefully designed to convince exchanges and incorporates feedback from CZ, including where he said the 1.2% burn tax can work if all exchanges implement at the same time, we need the 1.2% on-chain first, traders will leave if he changes alone (simultaneous launch of consensus of exchanges helps to limit that). All of this was explained in my thread. You don’t really comprehend it or engage with what it really is, and love to hate on it and misrepresent it, because by your own words you’re an anti-taxxer who believes in zero burn tax and the fantasy of utility burning our supply.

This might be a great proposal but it is impossible to tell because you are asking for funds for 8 different items with no budgets presented for each.

You said:

“All of the below will have their own separate proposals with detailed budgets.”

If that is the case then this is nothing more than a roadmap with no delivery dates, teams, etc.
Question where are the budgets?
How do we know 80 20 is correct?
How do we know 6 months is correct.
How many $$$ are you asking for?
Shouldnt this be split into 8 different whitepapers with full details, roadmaps, delivery schedules, budgets for each.
I know this will slow the process down but the LUNC community is very leery of spending proposals now out of the CP and this one may go down in flames.

It might be a great proposal but you simply cannot tell, scope is too broad and exact dollars not spelled out at all. LUNC community is not going to respond well to this.
Any executive or CEO of a company would not vote yes for this. This community needs better props that have limited scopes otherwise none of them will pass, even if they have merit.

Mark McDonnell
looking to build forex apps on the blockchain
fully doxxed and could care less

You can’t reopen the swap module until the swap algo is fixed and updated.

Apart from that little tidbit, I completely disagree with @JESUSisLORD about walling LUNC from the wider Cosmos ecosystem. Not gonna get into the whole argument here, but severing LUNC’s access to Cosmos utility and liquidity is a major mistake and will slowly destroy the chain.

1 Like

I know that. But that’s what we are trying to achieve with UST repeg. It takes time.

Lol no, the swap algo is beyond the scope of Redline’s plan. Always was.

The swap module needs a complete overhaul unless you want the chain to hypermint itself into oblivion again. Here, have fun: Market — Terra Classic Docs documentation

Protip: good luck figuring out a way to redesign that without nuking its functionality.

But I do oppose the swapping and minting module being turned back on. I don’t want another death spiral, minting, hyperinflation, or dangerous experiment for LUNC. Why would I want the same thing which destroyed LUNC in the beginning? I don’t want a single LUNC minted. Seniorage should be removed from the code. I would normally say no to any USTC re-peg attempt but despite its issues Redline’s was the best one I had seen, so he got an abstain from me.

@RabbiJebediah I am more isolationist for LUNC but moreso with Alliance I’m really opposed to anything which alters our staking rewards/oracle pool structure. If there are other suggestions which are beneficial for LUNC I would consider them further.

Taken directly from Redline’s. Best regards

Oh friend, you really are playing checkers while Rabbi play 55d hyperspace chess…

First of all, unidirectional swaps depend on buyback pools (and only function when there’s a surplus).

Second, dApps and parity have absolutely nothing to do with the swap algo and Market Module.

Third, any exogenous demand for USTC likewise isn’t tied to the MM, and can’t/won’t help it in any way.

Fourth, no details are given how a “modified AMM” will actually solve the problem of the swap algo.

Fifth, the Oracle pool has nothing – absolutely NOTHING! – to do with the swaps or the MM.

Sixth, Terra<>Terra swaps can’t be “gradual”; once the MM is turned on the algo works or it doesn’t.

Seventh, the MM’s function is binary - what isn’t are the separate regional stablecoins (like KRTC).

@wagnerdalcin the problem with so many of you is that you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. You see shiny buzzwords and think things will magically solve themselves just because you hope they will (protip: they won’t) In order to restart the MM and reignite Terra’s two-directional swaps, the algo first has to be redesigned in a way that preserves its original function while also preventing hypermints. I’m by no means throwing shade at Redline (I support his prop), but re-designing Terra’s market module was never a part of his repeg plan(s) - notice how specifically vague that portion of the writeup is left. It’s because no one’s solved it yet, and Redline is leaving the problem for a future team to tackle. So you see my dear friend @wagnerdalcin, you really shouldn’t try to lecture me on this.

Or to put it shortly: stay in your fucking lane and don’t talk about things you don’t understand!



the problem was never the minting system. The problem was not having created a security mechanism

More funds are needed for future expenses. No one at this point knows what those expenses will be. It all depends on what proposals people put up. But if you understand business you know it’s better to have cash in the bank than to have to scramble when bills come up. This prop will make sure we can address any expenses that come up. Also this prop is not asking for funds for any of the items listed. Those are all examples of things that may be requested. Best to give the community a choice when spending props come up as opposed to saying “we don’t have the funds for that”. Every CEO I know would vote for increasing cash reserves and not putting the money into a fireplace.

1 Like