@www.hottstocks.com No, price of LUNC is just setting new support line. It just behave like that. Just because this bulls without set support lines are unstable. This is super healthy. Binance support tax even better then they would support 1,2 % Because they can increase traded volume much more then with 1,2 %, just because they are most popular CEX´s. Just wait until American Binance will list Lunc…
I am happy to read through economic material or studies to reconsider what I have mentioned, but from the economic material that I have considered, it supports what I mentioned above, at least as long as the criteria mentioned above are being met. Minus that, I would agree that incentives tend to incentivize in ways that taxes and fees can not.
As a result of v0.5.19 and Before v0.5.21-22 Terra v1 governance was not open to stake, and therefore only a small percentage of LUNA v1 holders who were already staked could participate in governance. With v0.5.21-22 it reopened staking, and therefore full participation in governance voting. That means that anyone who would like to participate in governance voting can stake to do that. Yes, it requires they lock their stake for 21 days, while receiving compensation for doing that (this is for network stability, and is not just a feature of this blockchain, but of Proof of Stake in general (delegates contributing to the validator’s stake pool)). This system prevents abuse of the consensus system, absorbs the price volatility of Terra (in this network), provides a stable network where this is a small active set - it ultimately deals with the theory that underlies the model for consensus and stability purposes. It is not a poll tax meaning to prevent people from voting, it simply states if you want to vote you must be willing to show you have the networks best intentions in mind by contributing to its stability.
For the 99.88%, this was the yes vote of proposal 4661 (Parameter change for the 1.2% tax and burn)(graphically here). It was 99.88% of the 543.96B votes out of 638.04B staked (of total votes that could have been cast).
I would encourage traders to move their LUNA v1 on-chain if they would like to vote, unless they feel they are able to better their financial position through trading rather than staking (and receiving staking rewards), in which case they probably feel they can successfully trade in a positive position with the tax in place (otherwise once it imposes too much of a burden, they will shift to staking, or they will move to other investments - since, most likely, they really did not consider themselves as part of the Terra v1 governance community to begin with and instead considered themselves solely as traders).
I would agree that having traders move from Terra v1 may not be the best, but I would also mention that so far they still appear to be engaged in trading (even if it is not as lucrative as they would have chosen - such as 0% maker fees, or negative trading fees, or deep discounts in over the counter, would be), to the degree that the burn works it will raise demand and provide more incentives to traders under certain circumstances, and the unfortunate implementation problems may have had more to do with some of the inconveniences than the 1.2% burn itself.
Thank you for your comments for further reflection.
I hope that you are having a great day today 
Like @Pascal said: patience people.
If Lunc is not resilient enough to survive a 1,2% tax for a couple of months, we are doomed anyway, so it doesn’t matter. @Ambihel , everything is fine. Everything is working as intended: this drop in volume is normal and was expected and we are steadily burning more and more Lunc. And that’s it.
Wanna increase volume? Give Lunc utility (and no, I don’t think a high volume of transactions is a utility). Utility, at least for me, is anything that makes your money more valuable: anything that gives it more liquidity and/or returns. Ex: fiat on and off ramps, DEXs, liquid staking, arbitrage, lending & borrowing, etc.
Daily update on this matter.
- Our Daily volume is down back to its Pre Staking re-enablement levels.
- Mild Impact of CZ decision, after an initial (4X the volume on one day) we are down to the original trend with around 1.2T token exchanged. So everyone is aware, withdrawal fees has been fixed.
https://www.binance.com/fr/trade/lunc_BUSD?theme=dark&type=spot
Transaction rate is not utility per say, but it is a proof of the level of utility, the more transaction, the more use there is for it.
Hate to break it to you, but we are not in a good situation, and this tax is killing the chain. Our Inhability, as a “community”, to recognise our mistake is what drives the price down.
Why ? Who would put enormous amount of money, dev time, to support a chain where governance make erratic choices without second thoughts ?
I will update the initial proposal to lower the tax to 0.1% to reflect the people wanting to meet us half-way.
Long term solution lies only on the repeg.
Cheers,
A.
Lol Burn tax just became the top burn contributor and some people want to cancel it only after a few days of operation. If you can gaslight enough holders to believe that this will ‘help’, than my hats off to you sirs. No way i am voting for this. We need to reduce the supply first before this coin will get anywhere.
1 Like
Binance Exchange will publish the results of the internal Luna token burn next Monday.Can you guess how this data will affect the price?
At what cost ?
We burnt roughly 2 375 145 256 $LUNC since tax implementation. At current price, that’s 615K$ that disappear out of thin air.
Market cap Witnessed a 200M$ drop. For each $ we burn, the market cap currently loses 325$.
How do you expect to create greatness without some sacrifice? Get real! The true profits will come after the sacrifice.
The true Terra Rebels are willing to sacrifice and they will be the rich ~ if they do the right things… We have to remember to not take more than we need, greed will halt our progress and that progress will fulfill our financial desires… Sacrifice, patience, perseverance ~ and then the rewards…
There is high volume because of the expectation that the supply will reduce with the burn tax.
That was my bad. I didn’t articulate my words well… What I meant by “everything is fine” is that everything is going according to plan.
The 1,2% tax proposal was not erratic. It was thoroughly discussed and went through all the governance stages.
On the other hand, your proposal is erratic without second thoughts: what do you really think is gonna happen if the tax is eliminated? Do you think that the volume will rise to the previous levels and will keep that way? Do you think that you can reverse this situation by simply getting rid of the burn tax?
My guess is: if the burn tax is eliminated, most people who are speculating that the Lunc price will rise (due to the reduction of the supply by the burn tax), will leave. This will crash the price, making more people leave…
To make my point clear: getting rid of the tax right now will not make the transaction volume rise to the previous level.
@ambihel Where you are finding these informations please? Price just set new support line, then price again will get correction for burned lunc. Not sure what we lost? For me we got a lot?
If those who receive rewards from staking do so by lying Lunc then it is a serious mistake. Since it would be inflationary and doesn’t help with burning. But if the Lunc that are received are from those that are in circulation then there should be no problem. On the other hand, I have always thought that people should stake and burn the rewards.
1 Like