Not even two weeks have passed and they want to lower the tax without having good statistics or enough data. You do seem to be playing with the blockchain
1 Like
23 days and counting since the 1.2% tax became active on Sept 21.
The evidence is pretty clear.
Once you dig into this topic, you will know no other major blockchain charges this much transaction fee.
Right now there is minimum reason for users to even try Terra Classic other than pure speculation.
I am really over-explaining the urgency of reducing tax.
Ethereum Average Transaction Fee
Binance Smart Chain Average Transaction Fee
Bitcoin Average Transaction Fee
1 Like
Another thing is this 10% allocated to finance the ecosystem: I am against it IN THIS PROPOSAL . At least for me, this should be a different proposal : I think everyone agrees that the Terra Rebel team should be financially compensated, but using this 10% to lure people to vote for this proposal (this 10% was not part of the signal proposal) is dishonest. This is pure manipulation: probably there are people who are not certain about lowering the tax (who probably will not vote or would vote āabstainā), but because @Akujiro added this 10% part on the same day that the proposal went live, people would feel compelled to vote āyesā just because they want this 10% part.
It was a mutually agreed-upon addition to the proposal after the initial post. I made it clear to him that it would not be wise to push the tax rate down to 0% or 0.1% (as he asked) because there was a huge margin of error given the small dataset. As a compromise to this (since, again, he is the one pushing the proposal forward - if I wanted my own I would have done it under my name), I recommended he add 5% - 10% of revenue, a number given to us by Ed Kim in response to āhow much do you need to finance the LCD endpoint?ā
We canāt keep expecting them to pay it out of pocket. Iām still trading on-chain, but I both am forced to transact using UTXOs (dust) by having to manually adjust on every transaction due to the tax ā so I pay the tax (whether or not my transaction goes through) and have to trade less because of tax breakages.
Lastly: I agree that the 1,2% is hurting the chain, but proposing to change it at this time is arbitrary: by the end of the month, new validators will be able to join. Soon enough, IBC will be re-established. There is also the reppeg-plan of USTC. All of this can boost volume.
If we voted in a change thatās harmful, why would we keep it? This is what I truly do not understand. We:
- use an inefficient methodology to redistribute wealth across total LUNC supply ā by flatly redistributing the wealth via burn adjusted pro rata to people holding LUNC;
- Have forced the main users of the blockchain, traders, to move their liquidity to CEXs prior to the tax in order to trade without heavy punishment (taxation with no forward revenue)
- Strong-armed CEXs like Binance to purposefully run net negative on LUNC trading by asking them to burn all revenues earned by trading;
- Have not developed a community plan that addresses any of the above, such as financing dApps to come on chain, return to chain, in lieu of having people step up and do it themselves.
I see where youāre coming from, and truthfully, I am still new to doing these Agora proposals, but I would like to take that lesson forward to show the community that we can work things out and get better at this process by giving honest opinions like yours and iterating on it. We have been overrun with fluff proposals like Prop 5235 (āwe should ask Binance for help to make a new token called LBUSDā) and scam proposals like 5290 (scam link airdrop props, which havenāt been voted No With Veto on, which would return the 345k deposit to the community pool - instead being used to target the proposal weāre discussing!!)
I am spinning up a Validator in two weeks (Onyx) because before this and getting asked to join TR, I thought it would be useful to actually put my money where my mouth is and my nose to the grindstone to bring some life back to the chain. Iām working with tools that are breaking under the tax and need to finance somebody to come and develop. This 10% revenue would actually put some power in your guysā hands because you can fund whatever you want, or use the money in the ecosystem. (Or you can cash out, I donāt care.)
Truthfully, 0.2% + 10% revenue apportionment is helpful to me and I would like you all to see some of the taxes I have to pay in a way that doesnāt just redistribute it back to me because I manage a greater share of LUNC than quite a few people.
2 Likes
@Akujiro How and when the 10% will be distrubuted to projects(for current onchain projects/for new comers)?
10% will go into the community pool.
Anytime someone wants to access the community pool they will have to put up a proposal witht he amount they need and what the money is being used for.
The money inside the community pool is out of reach for everyone!
Only a proposal that passed will unlock the amount given, thatās all.
2 Likes
1 i have no problems with finding solution to fund TR dev team i even think that we can create a prop deduction from 1.2% tax burn 0.2 for funding TR dev teams and thee echoesystem. Lowering tax burn after only 3 week is a sign of community failure because 99% of the community voted yes to the last prop of 1.2% implementation it passed within 55 minutes. after only 3 weeks someone purpose to lowering the tax burn from 1.2 to .0.2 is a joke if it was 0.9 or less a lil bit well there were some discussions about it.
2 in the regard of binance free burning they can burn their lunc revenue of fees this was their decision and it is welcomed but my concern is if they knew that there is 10% of their tarns fees will go to fund contributors no body can garuntee their reaction
3 in the regard of massari.oi real vol 24 analyze it is represents inflows/ outflow of lunc volume in all cexs (off chain) i used this to prove that lunc vol is not impacted by the tax burn but as all cryptocurrencies impacted with the conditions of global economic/political events so lets say tacitly on chain tarns pathway is connected with off chain real vol because off chain vol represents the main inflows/outflows money gate to both off /on chain , and after 3 days of massari.oi analyze i create. yesterday ,blockscape validator used the same source i used but with more additions and more professionally and they said what the most people are says āwe dont have yet complete on chain data to evaluate the process of tax burn 1.2ā we need 1Q this is basic economic rules ,Thanks for your cooperation.
No it is not wrong data because i know it is off chain data analysis it is an evidence proves tax burn has no impact on real vol. the on chain data you are using now incomplete we need 1Q set of data so we can evaluate the process of on chain trans vol , in time you will realize tax burn has no impact either negative or positive on vol transactions add on that if taxs burn influencing tran vol you should ask yourself why staking ratio is increasing daily? Please donāt tell me it because delegators are delegating their staking rewards. You need to show me data to prove that
If you open an official youtube and tiktok page, if the income here is distributed fairly to the developers ā¦ I think it would be very supportive. What if some of them were burned? ā¦Great gains can be achieved. Thousands of people follow and help without taking a penny out of anyoneās pocket.
1 Like
@Muscularmant. Comparing actual on-chain transactions to transactions when āblood was everwhereā is not authoritative.
Before LUNC crashes, there was LOWER on-chain transaction Volume than now. Hereās few examples
01.01.2021 - 2.09M
01.02.2021 - 16.92M
01.03.2021 - 18,83M
01.04.2021 - 7,34M
02.05.2021 - 11,81M
01.06.2021 - 2.35M
01.07.2021 - 18,52M
01.08.2021 - 3,34M
01.09.2021 - 5,97M
02.10.2021 - 311,56K
01.11.2021 - 4,21M
01.12.2021 - 10,59M
01.01.2022 - 2,79M
02.02.2022 - 5,56M
01.03.2022 - 12,02M
02.04.2022 - 4,95M
01.05.2022 - 3,65M
crash begins
09.05.2022 - 72,37M
12.05.2022 - 6.17T
13.05.2022 - 7,59T
15.05.2022 - 1.13T
01.06.2022 - missing data
01.07.2022 - missing data
04.08.2022 - 32,98B
02.09.2022 - 167,64B
01.10.2022 - 23,85B
05.10.2022 - 11,28B
10.10.2022 - 19,6B
Right now we have 100 times BIGGER On-Chain Transaction Volume than before crash.
BUTā¦ @Eslam
You have to remember that value of LUNC drops more than 300 000 times so we have real drop if we relate it to real money (more les 20 times)
3 Likes
If you have a strong bias towards a topic, then no matter how hard you look, you will only find information that supports your argument.
Saying that off-chain data is any sort of evidence over on-chain, is quick frankly, laughable.
On-chain transactions are results of real wealth transfers, all fees and surcharges collected, 1.2% tax included, are non-refundable. On-chain transactions only happens when the transfer of custody is serious. People donāt broadcast transactions and pay non-refundable fees for the fun of it.
Off-chain transactions on the other hand, could be prompted up by market makers, traders, whales, with minimum fees collected by the centralized exchanges. Plus there are programs to refund trading fees especially to the larger liquidity providers. Everything happens within the exchange, with no impact to the actual network itself, so until users make withdraw, the exchange wallets actually owns those coin. Not your keys not your coins, Iām sure you have heard it before.
Aside from all that, you seem to conveniently left out the fact that 1.2% burn tax did not apply to off-chain, so of course the off-chain volume were NOT as impacted as on-chain.
āYou canāt wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.ā
@wrapped_dday thank you again for your honest response. Iām open to discussing the use of part of the 1,2% tax to finance the ecosystem. I am also open to discussing a way to pay the Terra Rebel team. But again: not in this proposal. The fact that the 10% was not part of the signal proposal and was not thoroughly discussed is, at least for me, a direct attack on the current governance system, and opens up a dangerous precedent, where any proposal can legitimately pass without following the proposalsā guidelines.
Again, I admit that the current 1,2% tax is not benefiting the chain as it should, but I also think that lowering it to 0,2% isnāt ideal either. One obvious thing that can happen is CEXs adjusting their own fees to retain their users (still keeping it cheap to transact off-chain than on-chain). Another thing would be the increase in the on-chain volume not enough to balance out the reduction in tax, resulting in less Lunc being burned. Another thing is the public perception: after only 2 weeks, the tax gets changed, so people judge the chain as too volatile, etc.
My point is: there are a lot of unintended consequences that were not accounted for.
Also, there are a lot of unexplored solutions. A couple of examples: putting a limit to the times that the tax will incur for the same wallet in, say, an epoch (so, in 7 days the tax will incur to a max of 100 times, for example). Or creating a tiered tax according to the value of the transaction (up to 10.000 Lunc: free, up to 100.000 Lunc: 0,5% etc etc). Another option: wallets that were inactive (no transactions) in the last epoch can transact in the current epoch for freeā¦ You get the ideaā¦ There are a lot of ways that the tax can be manipulated to optimize the burn rate.
There is also the timing issue: when the tax gets adjusted is as important as by how much. Should we lower it before or after a big announcement? (IBC, for example). Should we lower it after CZ gives his opinion? A new CEXs will implement the off-burn tax. Should we adjust the tax now?
And we are only talking about the 0,2% part. If we consider the 10% part, there is a whole new discussionā¦ And if we put these two things in the same proposalā¦
And thatās why I am against this proposal.
3 Likes
What If a project or a entity come up with a plan and invested tons of money on the basis of your 10 percent community pool money as a back up . And the proposal got passed and they started to work faithfully for the community. Then middle of their work some one else come up with another attractive proposal and cancel out the old proposal allocation and ruin old proposal entityās/org invested money , time, idea , life everything? Is this good for growth of any organisation or community?
Think carefully, you are setting an example kind of like this whatever you are doin you gonna end all the fomo and investors sentiment.
1 Like
Okay, I think I got your point the first time. If you vote No on it Iāll rewrite it with more feedback under my name.
2 Likes
Of course not . The aim is to create liquidity for the developers. Other solutions can be provided. Who will guarantee that the Volume will riseā¦ What if it does not?
Thank you for the proposal, but the recently passed proposal is directly impacted, so Iām a little bit concerned and confused:
- Is 1B still our goal? If so,
- 1.2% was already a ādo, see, and planā, I think we need to give it more time for us to collect all the info we needed to plan the next steps or to set a timeline for when we can possibly have this done, as I think we can all understand how high tax may not be good for the chain long term
- Iām all for compensating devs, can we do it while still significantly reducing the supplies?
- If 1B is no longer our goal, what is? Why 0.2% -10%? If we donāt care about the total supplies anymore, why not 0.02% and directly to the community pool?
What is the relation between LUNC and USTC right now?
We better payout all stacking rewards from LUNC into USTC. This way we assure a constant burning of LUNA and a guarantor in USTC. USTC to be used in Bridge Transaction only , with equivalent of 1$ = 1USTC.
Think about āPaperā is LUNC and āMoneyā is USTC. With āPaperā you print āMoneyā.
There are two options to get USTC :
- Stacking LUNC and get the stacking rewards in USTC. When you convert Rewards to USTC you take out of supply the amount.
- Exchange 1$ to 1USTC
This way you have a guarantor in USTC.
And if you need LUNC to stack more, first you need to buy USTC, then exchange it into LUNC.
This way you make both of them to depend one on the other one.
You canāt apply 1.2% at that high volume, now you say yes to this offer, You bowed to CZ and DK. It will become worthless day by day. We donāt play paintball, i think great opportunity will end with this offer 
1 Like
An excellent article by Ed covering this proposal - Terra Classic Proposal 5234. A recent proposal has posted by aā¦ | by Edward Kim | Oct, 2022 | Medium
3 Likes
How can an offer with 65% no votes on Twitter pass? I couldnāt vote, for example, itās weird that I donāt have the right because #binance is in my wallet