I support this proposal .
10% tax instan unstake 
not for burn. But for community pool 100% 
Well there wouldnt be a 90% profit lol. 10% hit from undelegation + .2% withdraw from terra station to an exchange = 10.2%. Now add in trading fees on selling. Lets say 2% because of fee+ slippage. Now u are at 12.2%. We cant forget uncle sam either. Since we just turned a long-term gains tax into short-term tax. So add another 35% to that. 12.2% + 35%= 47.2%. Last but not least the off ramp fee from exchange to bank added to 47.2%. I dont think its a bad idea to have a fee for undelegation sooner. I do think 10% is way too high for it. All those other taxes and fees have to be added and taken into account.
To withdraw fiat from the exchange, we need to pay 47%?
How much Luna Classic would we burn if this tax were implemented?
This is a very difficult question indeed. I think the easiest way is to imagine how high the average daily withdrawals would be with this feature, then calculate the average burn per day and based on that calculate how much we would burn in 1 month, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years and 20 years.
Example:
If we expected the average total amount of coin withdrawals with this feature to be 1 billion (1,000,000,000 LUNC), then we would be burning 3 billion (3,000,000,000 LUNC) per month. And that is really a lot, considering that we are currently burning a total of around 1 billion (1,000,000,000 LUNC) per month with the help of our 0.2% tax.
The red color indicates that the burned amount is higher than the current total supply!!!
50 percent burn 50 percent oracle pool. why to increase rewards for stakers as there is larger amount of undelegation to encourage staking. this happens 2 ways less stakers = less people to divide rewards to refilling of oracle by the tax.
Good idea, Iām all for it. Can you contact the L1 team? Is it something that can be done? 
15% when rising and 10% when falling
or vice versa 
All the examples used has LUNC increasing and are all about profits. Unless I am mistaken, isnāt part of the reason there is a 21-day waiting period on withdraws is to help ensure liquidity in case of a run and major drop in price. Please address how instant unstaking and the 10% penalty affects overall liquidity in these types of situation.
3 Likes
I think, yes. If panic sets in and sales start, the fine will not even out the situation at all. And the abolition of the threshold of 21 days will instantly add offers to the market
This optional . Can zero tax with waiting 21 day and can instan with tax 10% .
I this this proposan can + high volume transaction on chain and cex . Also high reward if 10% tax for all validators
1 Like
It would be a huge loss for me.
I thought about this like a month agoā¦ but in a little more complex version. Hereās my idea.
What about an undelegation tax that charges a % (lets use a 1% for round numbers but it could be updateable) fir day you gain on the 21 days period.
So, if Iām willing to pay 3%, I can undelegate in 18 days and if Iām willing to pay 10% I can undelegate in 11 days. So, 21% is max tax and immediate undelegation.
Why so high? There are 2 reasons why I thought about it.
-
LUNC can totally rise a 60% in matter of 3 or 4 daysā¦ letās say a week. So If I see that kind of movement and I think fast, I can get a full 39% profit for an immediate undelegation, and I would love to. I would be totally and absolutely willing to take a 38% profit and I see that hardly, someone would not be willing to. I can lose if price drops below my profit point so fast I canāt get the trade, but trading involves risk and I accept that for starter.
-
In my aweful country, everything (literally everything) that could be bought and sold has a tax. Itās a universal tax for all things new (food, clothes, services, construction materials, cars, bikes, everything) and itās exactly 21%. It has been that way for arround 40 years and people seems to be confortable with it. But thatās not all tax we getā¦ if you buy a car or letās say a coke or a wine, you end up paying a 60% to 70% tax to the goverment. When you buy a new car, you pay 2 cars. One for you and one for the goverment. And people seems to be confortable with it since my cou try doesnāt explode as it should.
As Iām a trained psychologist, I donāt think about the % but about how people get used to things, even taxes. So it seems marvelous for someone like me, to pay a 10% or even 21% tax to take profit and gain something. And the best part is that Iām free to choose if pay or not. Since nobody forces me to unstake or to accelerate unstaking. I can calculate exactly how Iām going to pay and what lucrative bussiness am I going to do next with my lunc that exceeds the tax.
Thatās why I was about to propose something like you did but has a little more complex argument. The burning part is exactly the same and I also thoguht about a threshold like 10%> totally burn, 10%< goes to community and oracle pool and stuff like that. So stakers get bennefited after all since thereās more lunc in oracle and apy an go up.
Well thatās what I thought and I wanted to share since it could make the proposal more eclectic and interesting for the community.
Btw Iām from Argentina.
1 Like
All this is applicable at the time of the growth of the asset. An increase in its value at times. It is unlikely that people will freak out and urgently withdraw funds for sale. This is the psychology of a trader. While the asset is growing, it is waiting. What can not be said about the falling market. This is where panic sets in. and divided means will exacerbate it. 90% is certainly less than 100%, but much more than 0.
Question. is there any chain who has implemented this succesfully?
Iām not sure we want to take that risk. This feature exposes us to the risk of rapidly releasing delegated coins into circulation, so there may be an immediate increase in the circulating supply. We have to compensate for this with the highest possible permanent burning and reduction of total supply. The higher the burn, the safer the chain, especially during turbulent market situations.
We are currently in a public debate. Subsequently, in approximately 1 week, this proposal will go to the āsecond readingā and this will be the moment when I will contact the L1 team.
And the percentages? I personally believe in simplicity, purity, clarity. Therefore, I do not want to create a complicated automated algorithm that would be incomprehensible to users and unnecessarily too difficult to implement. 10% is the critical minimum for burning. I consider anything under 10% burns to be an extreme risk for our blockchain.
Long-term prosperity and permanent gradual price increase is definitely one of the indicators of our success. In the long run, this proposal would lead to a decrease in total supply and an increase in the price of LUNC. Immediate cancellation of delegation including 10% burn tax will be one option. The traditional option will continue to work in parallel with the new function. So the classic cancellation of delegation without a fee and a waiting period of 21 days will still be valid. By the way, I am in favor of extending this period to 30 days. Immediately canceling the delegation can sharply increase the circulating supply at moments when the price in the market rises sharply or falls sharply. We will protect our ecosystem by implementing the HIGHEST possible burn tax for this feature to sharply reduce total supply. The reason is that we donāt want a lot of people willing to sacrifice coins in favor of burning. We want to reach a state where this function will be used only in really justified situations.
In case of panic selling, we must know how to protect our network. We will increase this protection so that the tax collected for using the function of immediate cancellation of delegation must be as high as possible, at least 10%. (I personally can imagine even 20%). Only the immediate and permanent burning of the total supply can compensate us for the potential sharp increase in the circulating supply. I think that if we imagine a very negative scenario that if 1 trillion LUNC were to go into circulation, then permanently burning 100 billion is a good compensation for the whole Luna Classic community. Yes, the circulating supply would increase immediately, but only in the short term. But the total supply would decrease forever. Therefore, opinions that this fee should be 1-2% are absolutely dangerous. If prices shot up 500% now, anyone would sacrifice 1-2% to sell it to make a profit. We donāt want this. Ideally, this function would be used earlier in times of calm in the markets. But we must also be prepared for situations when there is a lot of volatility in the markets.
The traditional option to terminate the delegation would still be available. 21 days and the regular fee as it is now will still be an option.
This is unnecessarily complicated. I believe in simplicity. Traditional option + quick option with 10% burn tax.
You got it very right. Some people mistakenly think that this tax is always applied when using the āUndelegateā function. It is not truth. The current option of withdrawal and waiting for 21 days will always remain available and without an additional fee.
I consider it very dangerous if we burn less than 10%. If we want to raise funds for the community pool or oracle pool as well, then we have to increase this fee overall. In that case, I recommend a 20% tax for using fast undelegation (10% burn, 5% community pool, 5% oracle pool)
Therefore, the tax must be as high as possible and at the same time the percentage of sending to the burning wallet must also be as high as possible. We will ONLY reduce the risk of a potential sharp increase in the circulating supply (undelegate) by immediately and permanently reducing the total supply (burning). The ratio of 90 to 10% seems to me to be on the edge of acceptability. But honestly, I would very much like to convince people for a 20% burn tax, because the ratio of 80 to 20 seems to me to be even better for society. If the amount of this tax is acceptable only for some part of users and there is still a large group of people who consider this tax unacceptably high, then I consider this to be an excellent result for our entire community. If this burn tax were too low, it would be extremely dangerous for our blockchain. The ideal is probably to find a tax amount that is acceptable for 50% of people and unacceptable for 50% of people. Then we will maintain a healthy balance between security and utility.
Hi. I havenāt researched all blockchains in detail but I have feedback from people that there are coins with a much higher tax burden. For example, an extreme tax of 10% on buying and selling, and someone also mentioned a 25% fee for immediate cancellation of staking. However, I think that it is not important to look for the competition. Because we have a unique network, unique people, a burning mind, we have goals, development and so on. In each blockchain, there are completely different input conditions for calculating optimality. I consider 10% burn tax for immediate cancellation of staking as MINIMUM and 20% burn tax as OPTIMAL.
1 Like
There are about a trillion in circulation every day. Ā±. Plus a trillion in staking.
Now, if those in circulation were taxed, at least 1%, for burning, it would be beneficial. But alas
I support this proposal. it is harmless. There is little benefit, of course, but at least some movement.
3 Likes
I like it an interesting concept and may also lead to an increased number of coins being staked if we know we can get instant access if needed
1 Like
I think, instant undelegation is too dangerous. At least, It should has any delay 3 days, 7 days to prevent market price get chaos. Itās good for investors easy to manage their own asset but if you give much more free to undelegate that mean more and more ppl will sell their LUNC/USDC and more d-u-m-p the price very fast when the price start to go up. Whatās next ?
1 Like