Bikram that picture is of ustc not of lunc! You have to switch it in the app to see the lunc volume.
All I say itâs not the right time for it. Itâs to early to do or say something like that. Itâs a community based project. If you want community to DYOR, atleast give community some time to DYOR.
More time for what? To see another month of flat line on volume? More time to confirm that developers wonât risk time and resource on a chain with expensive transaction cost?
Please employee common sense. This is NOT going against burn tax, this is making the burn tax better, a more viable burn tax with the added benefit to set aside money for development. This is how you run successful businesses / projects in real life. Not just moon boy pump and d.ump.
1 Like
What is the Tax rate of USTC ? Is it 0.02 % ? I donât think so.
Many paid puppets in here. if you cant burn 300 b lunc per month then you are going nowhere. 0.2% will be may be after 30 years if lunc is still there.
1 Like
thousands of ideas said 1.2% 3-5 people want 0.2 . I think heâs thinking about whalesâŚIt hasnât even been a month yet
1 Like
We need to burn a lot of tokens and you insist on wanting to lower the tax 
. Thus the time to achieve the objective would lengthen more.
the 99% voted for the 1.2% what makes you think we will vote to reduce it?
4 Likes
In addition, reducing the tax will ultimately help only the whales that have 100 of millions, see the billions won with even 10, 20 million lunc.
Exemple:
https://finder.terra.money/classic/account/terra1p54hc4yy2ajg67j645dn73w3378j6k05v52cnk
If the whales want to go out, they can very well pay the tax.
If whales can earn it on the chain, the tax anyway.
Taxes in the world have never prevented trade as long as there is the usefulness of doing it and winning it
1 Like
No. With #LUNC, the greater the trading volume, the lower the price. The burn tax hasnât worked and #LUNC has declined since it was first introduced. I suggest scrapping the tax then burning 90% of the total supply and leaving it to market forces.
Yes indeed
hi, i work as a dev for one of the main terra 2.0 protocols. building a project on lunc that will release december. i want to emphasize that reducing the tax burn is a very bad idea. this entire revival movement has been based on increasing burns to reduce supply so lunc price can go up.
-
<< burning is not price sticky : lower tax burn wonât increase volume proportional. >> we know volume when tax burn is 0. we know volume when tax burn is 1.2. when tax burn is upped to a non-zero value it creates a beta by existing. reducing tax burn by 5x from 1.2 to 0.2 will not increase volume 5x because the beta of a non-zero tax burn existing in the first place has not been acconted for. you could increase tax burn to 2.4 and it wont halve volume but it would double burning value cause the beta is already accounted for. same for utility on chain, beta is the same.
-
<< reducing the burn tax sends a hypocritical message to exchanges. >> we have sent a very loud strong message to exchanges saying the burn is going to happen. cz binance said we need to implement it on the chain first. once we implemented it on the chain he started his own binance burn. now if we back pedal and reduce it right here right now, there is a huge risk binance disables their own tax since it was based on pushing 1.2. other exchanges may cancel their plans if they see what is going on. we need to be full steam ahead and commit to vision of burning supply to increase price.
-
<< we havenât waited enough time to see real effects so we shouldnt rush. >> every week we see new apps and players entering lunc space so theres a lot of movement without things settling down. once things settle down in a few months we can always look at the proposals again. but rushing into this proposal will be disaster because it might cause binance to back down and we also slow down all the burns!!
very dangerous to reduce the burn tax now. letâs burn more lunc first and decide in 90days. those are my thoughts as a dev
10 Likes
rather freshly passed and overwhelmingly in an unprecedented way ⌠and why ignore it ? .Who guarantees that when you reduce it, the volume will be 10 times every day? we have the opportunity, give it time ⌠there are very good works rpeg ustc vs etc
1 Like
Another history that shows that the volume in lunc and transaction does not seem to have decreased if we compare the month of July and August. September being rather a false positive
1 Like
Man. Community worked so hard to get the tax done. Now you want to shut it down again. The tax is not the reason for transactional volume decrease. Itâs just paperhands getting out of their positions and not returning. We are here for long-term. What image will be depicted of a community that fights for a tax just in order to tear it down 4 weeks after implementation?
3 Likes
i agree with you Any tax action we are playing with peopleâs greed and fear. And most people do not have the idea of ââsacrificing their minority for the greater good of the community. The current 1.2 percent tax action is now working as it should. We are solving the problem of excess supply. We are not from normal ecosystems. To implement this supply reduction, I think we need to use a combination of methods to achieve the best possible results. We have to come up with some propositions to increase peopleâs greed. For example, Do Kwon invented the Anchor Protocol and pulled funds into the system. But in reality, we should only use this system temporarily until the supply drops to the point we need and then we have to stop using it immediately. Because this system is not suitable for long term use. Because it will collapse as we have seen from past events.
Exactly, you got it.
1.2% burn Tax is not the reason. No one has started following 1.2% burn tax yet as long as I know. We need to find ways to enforce it. If everyone had followed 1.2% burn tax then we would have already burnt over 100 billion lunc by now.
1 Like
CEX can already implement any form of taxation even right now, without any need for us to change the tax burn ratio.
Traders arenât effected by taxation right now, so I donât really get the real purpose of this proposal.
In this case, what is the point of trying to bid CEXs in the first place? Do we even care about centralization, or pushing the price of the coin up by taxing the only users of the chain? If you wait long enough, anyone staking/delegating will also have to eventually pay taxes, as they are exempt right now from paying them.
The sole purpose of the 1,2% tax is to burn Lunc. Thatâs it. It is not a source of revenue. If the community wants another source of revenue, letâs have a discussion about that.
Look, I agree. Semantics are important. But literally anybody working on the chain (and not just passively investing) have been working for free for nearly half a year without pay. They may not say it out loud, but if you are working a full-time job, and then come to this project, work your ass off, and then watch as people voted to generate millions in tax revenue only to throw it a big dumpster fire? Reminds me of that Joker scene in The Dark Knight - burning a pile of money only to say âitâs not about the money, itâs about sending a message.â (and what message are we sending?)
It was established that the 1,2% tax would incur in every single transaction. And that is what is happening. dApps had months to adjust their contracts to the tax. Yes, it is expensive to trade in this chain, but this was expected .
Why do you think these contracts werenât updated? Maybe because they already took a massive financial blowout from the collapse, and now new investors who bought in after want to tax them and not use the money? This whole thing has struck me as completely insane since it was first announced.
Not to mention multiple people (myself included) told everyone exactly how CEXs would react and weâre somehow disappointed weâre not hitting whatever random burn targets we never pre-defined? Saving face only makes sense if you care about public perception - by the way, it still is not good from the broad-market standpoint. Binance gets to play nice because they lost a metric tons of money in the Terra blowout. They obviously have a vested interest.
And my last point is that having a higher tax now is an advantage: down the road when the time comes to adjust the tax-to-volume ratio to maximize the burn rate, it will be easier to lower the tax than to increase it.
If it takes 7 days to implement a full tax implementation (epochal basis), then why not try and iterate on the tax rate to see what works? In the proposal, I did say that we can turn it down to 0.2%, then scale it back up to 1.2%. It gives us a good idea of what kind of tax fluctuations could work if we decide somehow that >1.2% tax is helpful. The code allows for floating tax rate changes; itâs just clamped to 1.2% for now.
Pretty significant changes from the signal proposal: setting aside 10% for the dev team was not part of the discussion and should be a different proposal altogether. In my opinion, this is a dishonest move: it is a consensus that the dev team should be compensated, but using this argument to push forward your proposal to reduce the tax is pretty dishonest.
I see what youâre saying here. This is actually something Akujiro and I talked to Ed about since the LCD endpoint needs to get financed, and again, every dev is working out of their own pocket. The code parameter changes actually redirect the burn tax revenue to the oracle pool. Iâm one of the few on-chain traders left, it seems, and this tax breaking every dApp is making it nigh impossible to work with. I cannot wait for Delphi to âhopefullyâ update their contracts âbecause the community voted for it.â I donât mind paying the tax (and neither does my client) if the revenue actually goes to helping build the ecosystem out â we have an agreement it must remain on Terra Classic. It can go to the oracle pool. I donât care. Figure something out.
All I say itâs not the right time for it. Itâs to early to do or say something like that. Itâs a community based project. If you want community to DYOR, atleast give community some time to DYOR.
We had 5 months to determine whether the tax was even a good idea in the first place (economically, it doesnât even make any sense). There are no goalposts besides 10b circulating supply. No timeline, nothing.
hi, i work as a dev for one of the main terra 2.0 protocols. building a project on lunc that will release december. i want to emphasize that reducing the tax burn is a very bad idea. this entire revival movement has been based on increasing burns to reduce supply so lunc price can go up.
Do you mind sharing which protocol this is?
- << burning is not price sticky : lower tax burn wonât increase volume proportional. >> we know volume when tax burn is 0. we know volume when tax burn is 1.2. when tax burn is upped to a non-zero value it creates a beta by existing. reducing tax burn by 5x from 1.2 to 0.2 will not increase volume 5x because the beta of a non-zero tax burn existing in the first place has not been acconted for. you could increase tax burn to 2.4 and it wont halve volume but it would double burning value cause the beta is already accounted for. same for utility on chain, beta is the same.
I already addressed this in the pros/cons section. It has been pointed out by more users than just myself that the semantics of the initial signal was to encourage higher volume with reduced tax rates (as it was in January 2022 in Prop 172).
Yes, market beta is priced in â but remember that internal swaps using mint/burn are turned off, so this is effectively a completely different situation of ânon-taxation/lower-taxation efficacy.â
I understand peopleâs desire to want to save face, but there wonât be shame in providing a reasonable foundation of negotiation if we want to keep working with Binance to earn their market share. Right now, we are quite literally begging them to Please Use the Chain and Pay More Taxes (We Wonât Use Them By the Way).
Even asparagoid from LUNCDAO understands that 1.2% was a way to get people together on a common path. Iâm not trying to rock the boat for the sake of rocking it, or extract liquidity completely. If that were the case, I wouldnât be talking about this on governance forums and working with Terra Rebels to do anything. I think the market is overcrowding the short narrative due to historical performance and public community perception. Would do us good to actually put some legs on our community rhetoric.
Man. Community worked so hard to get the tax done. Now you want to shut it down again. The tax is not the reason for transactional volume decrease. Itâs just paperhands getting out of their positions and not returning. We are here for long-term. What image will be depicted of a community that fights for a tax just in order to tear it down 4 weeks after implementation?
Decreasing is not the same as repealing. I have fielded multiple people who want it back to 0%. This retains the tax and at least sets some of it aside for keeping the blockchain literally on. Or should we keep expecting Ed & Co. to keep paying it out of his own pocket while he takes care of his family and teaching at college?
1.2% burn Tax is not the reason. No one has started following 1.2% burn tax yet as long as I know. We need to find ways to enforce it. If everyone had followed 1.2% burn tax then we would have already burnt over 100 billion lunc by now.
âIf this, then thatâ arguments will not work here. They didnât follow the 1.2% tax and somehow we think that by resting on our laurels they will warm up to it. This chain will continue to be non-sovereign and reliant on venture capital funding if we do not sustain something internally, in which case, Iâd just use Solana instead. Or any other competitor L1 that actually can afford to pay their devs.
1 Like
I think everyone agrees that the devs should be compensated, but not with the burn tax. The 1,2% burn tax is to burn Lunc. Thatâs it. Yes, we are literally throwing money away. But thatâs the purpose of it. And any dev who joined knew that it would be a voluntary work without any pay. Any dev who joined implicitly agreed to that. But using this as an argument to lower the tax (also knowing that you could soon be part of the Terra Rebels team) is dishonest. And again, lowering the tax and allocating part of the tax to pay the devs should be separate proposals. And the fact that this wasnât discussed in the signal proposal is just wrong.
This is another conflict of interest here: it was argued that the validators were at risk, that the oracle pool was getting empty, that dApps are against the tax, etc. But in the end, it seems that you are not profiting (for your client) enough with on-chain trades because of the tax. Thatâs why you want to lower the tax.
If you had come straight to the point and said that, and if you had avoided all these tangent arguments, more people would be willing to listen and, probably, compromise. But no, you and @Akujiro pushed hard this proposal based on statistics, implying that the low volume put the chain at risk, while you have several vested interests not disclosed in the signal proposal.
2 Likes
I think everyone agrees that the devs should be compensated, but not with the burn tax. The 1,2% burn tax is to burn Lunc. Thatâs it. Yes, we are literally throwing money away. But thatâs the purpose of it. And any dev who joined knew that it would be a voluntary work without any pay. Any dev who joined implicitly agreed to that. But using this as an argument to lower the tax (also knowing that you could soon be part of the Terra Rebels team) is dishonest. And again, lowering the tax and allocating part of the tax to pay the devs should be separate proposals. And the fact that this wasnât discussed in the signal proposal is just wrong.
Between the time this proposal was drafted and now, I was offered a spot to go on board by Zaradar. Unfortunate that the timing would appear in such a way. Is the declarative biases section at the top now not enough?
Also â I am not a dev, so why would I take dev money? Look, if it pleases you, I will rescind my offer and go and do my own thing. Itâs probationary, and it doesnât matter where I am in this eco. But the fact remains the same: I am still a user of the blockchain, just like anybody holding spot native or wrapped assets, staking or delegating on-chain or off-chain. To disregard any information provide is your prerogative.
At this rate, if people are hellbent on lackadaisically not compensating the core devs (who are not myself) in any shape or form (in addition to parameter changes being gated by devs, and sent directly to the oracle pool instead of their wallets), then Iâll rescind my offer for TR and continue to further make known what Iâm doing which I have been public about for months.
Implicit agreements to work for free isnât leeway to exploit that.
This is another conflict of interest here: it was argued that the validators were at risk, that the oracle pool was getting empty, that dApps are against the tax, etc. But in the end, it seems that you are not profiting (for your client) enough with on-chain trades because of the tax. Thatâs why you want to lower the tax.
Obviously. If you trade on-chain, it is strictly worse than using a CEX. There is almost no reason to use it. And yet, I must abide by the contractual agreement set forth. Tell me â how do you trade on a blockchain with almost no working dApps and is purely based on speculative investment predicated on developers doing free work? Do you think that it is easy to do so? Does this matter to the general populace, or should we accept that, really, itâs just better to sell tokens to people who think the coin will moon because the ecosystem is exploiting free workers and throwing away money?
If you feel strongly against it, then vote No, or No with Veto.
I have made it abundantly clear since joining this discussion two months ago where my interests are aligned. Thereâs also a 7-month history on my public profiles about this. I do also understand that some people only use one vector of discussion and donât keep up with some things, as there is a lot of information to digest.
Additionally, I did not intend for the signal proposal to go up so early. That is something you will have to take up with @Akujiro as he asked me to provide research that could argue in favor of lower taxes; it was posted immediately after, and so now I have to come and defend it. Same as anyone else who voted for an economically unwise burn tax.
In the end, everybody is always acting and voting in their self-interest. Canât say that the burn tax really sends the message otherwise.