@wrapped_dday@Akujiro
What is the point of this proposal? I think that everyone here (pro and against this proposal) agrees that the 1,2% tax caused a reduction in the transaction volume, and agrees that lowering the tax most likely will increase the volume (but certainly not at the pre-tax level). So what?
The premise of this proposal is that the blockchain is at risk because the validators are running at a loss at this volume level. Is this really the case? Are they complaining? In this thread, that wasnât a single validator voicing their opinion in this regard. And they can always increase their commission.
And letâs not forget that in less than a month, new validators will be able to join. Not only that, but more and more CEXs are implementing the off-chain burn. And Binance will calculate their burn on Monday. And there is the possibility to reenable IBC. My point is that are several good news that can raise the Lunc price, which can offset the loss the validators are incurring now.
This is highly impatient and not helpful. The devs are working round the clock to help several apps to fix their code to refelect this 1.2% tax. Once most are fixed, we will get s much truer picture. The community voted for this, let it play out. This is just a half-baked, knee-jerk reaction.
The tax should be left where it is and adjusted down the track if needed as was the plan from the start when the tax was introduced. Instead of trying to destroy the good work that has been done and allowing enough time for the data to be collected to gauge itâs effects you come up with a plan going against what 99% of us voted for to rescue lunc. To increase flow, concentrate on getting more Utility onto the chain and work as a team to achieve the results we all want and have fought for. Shelve your idea and give the tax time to do its job and work on utilities.
0.2% burn tax is not enough. I think it must be 0.4 % is much better as compared to1.2% burn rate. 0.4% tax not impacting on trading volume. Because circulating supply of LUNC decrising the price of LUNC will be increasing respectivly.
We are not talking about trading volume. That is a separate area that we donât have any control of. We are only talking about on chain. The price of lunc doesnât matter in this case, only volume matters.
The minimum required period of time to draw conclusions and evaluate the effectiveness of the introduced tax is 6 months.In April or May 2023, we will have all the data on the effectiveness of the introduced tax.And based on this data, we will be able to discuss the need to reduce the tax on incineration.
I would like for people against a burntax reduction to bring up FACTUAL ARGUMENTS against a reduction! I have not seen one factual argument against a burntax reduction.
I see and hear a lot of emotions against it, insults as well, which I personally do not mind. But again, NO FACTUAL ARGUMENTS against a burntax reduction.
This discussion is happening and it is happening right now. Everyone has the chance to voice their real concerns based on FACTS. You can also voice your opinion but without factual arguments these opinions wonât hold up anywhere.
Here a factual argument. The large trading volume you seek. The one we had prior to the tax. Was entirely due to the tax upcoming. Thank you tax for the incredible trading vollume you brought us already!
This is a democratic space where everyone is allowed to voice their opinions, factual-based or not.
The only fact here is that is a statistical correlation between on-chain volume and the burn tax, based on a very limited dataset. Thatâs it. You saying that lowering the tax will increase volume IS NOT A FACT. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. And you are disregarding absolutely everything else that could affect volume.
If you are not willing to openly discuss your proposal just because people are emotional, and you think that isnât any good argument against it so far, close this thread and just put this proposal to vote.
Totally agree and support the visionary proposal, say a fact people who are against lowering the tax just because they donât participate in on-chain transfers or hold very few chips, the tax rate though is lowered to increase the motivation of whale chip flow and we can actually burn more, please initiate the parameter proposal as soon as possible instead of waiting until 10.10. thank you for your dedication to the lunc community.
The tax proposal has only been in effect for a few days and now you are proposing to lower the tax rate, are you guys kidding me? Is this a mature community? Are you kids playing games?
Cryptocurrency canât burn, but at least it promises to burn the transaction fees, isnât that what you get because of the 1.2% transaction tax?
Do you guys really think that lowering the tax rate will increase burning? (Just like you guys think a 1.2% tax rate will make you rich???) If we canât raise it, do we then change it to a bonus 1.2%?
Since we have determined the direction, we should go on firmly, at least wait for 3-6 months after the tax rate is implemented, and then see what happens, we will determine the direction again, in the meantime, we should improve our network and attract good projects, this is what we should do now, instead of acting like kids and acting willy-nilly.
Thanks for your input kingv and I agree!
I wish we could put it up sooner but the proposal needs more time plus thereâll be a lot of AMAs happening on the 6th and 9th afaik.
A lot of people are still on the fences and we want to give everyone a bit time to warm up on the idea.
We shouldâve had this discussion earlier on and for a longer time but sadly nothing happened.
The good thing about a decentralized coin like LUNC is, that anyone of us can put up a proposal and if that proposal is sound, has good facts and data backing it up plus improves the LUNC chain in the short, mid and long-term then it should pass as well imo.
It was actually due to staking not the burn tax. And it isnât trading volume we are looking at. It is on chain volume. You have to understand the reason we are even looking at this is because of the unhealthy drop in on chain volume. We believe we will burn more with lower tax, while keeping the chain healthy.
Your statistics on on-chain volume drop is thorough and well-researched but does it reflect what Validators, DApps consider of the 1.2% tax? Can we collate their overall inferences on this issue before conclusion on tax reduction? Donât you think that if given time they can adjust to the 1.2% tax rate hence spiking volume and on-chain activities to value high?
In the past there was a tax on chain of .25 percent which didnât seem to effect the volume, however they chose to remove it in favor of better economic incentives. One of the biggest issues for the higher tax rate not working as well is due to stacking of the tax. If there are multiple hops a person has to take the tax is stacked over and over. That essentially becomes theft. Most of the volume on chain is back and forth to binance, with binance having no, or a lower rate it incentives then to stay on binance. 1.2 was a number pulled from thin air with no research behind it. At least with .2 we have data from previously utilized activity. Binances average burn fee will most likely end up around .05 percent but will be insanely helpful. I believe Mexc burn is coming in around .1 as well. So we are actually being more inline with their taxes and helping for a better chain flow.
is thorough and well-researched but does it reflect what Validators, DApps consider of the 1.2% tax? Can we collate their overall inferences on this issue before conclusion on tax reduction? Donât you think that if given time they can adjust to the 1.2% tax rate hence spiking volume and on-chain activities to value high?