New Economic Policy for Terra Classic: Set of 4 Proposals to Align Incentives

[NN78]

@dfunk

The biggest utility of Terra Classic is staking

[dfunk]

you can see the data for this here:

[Proposal] Exclude Smart Contraction Transactions from the scope of Burn Tax

Summary This proposal aims to exclude contract executions by dapps from the scope of Burn Tax. Motivation When the proposal for burn tax was introduced by @ek826 , the following transaction types were included in the scope of the burn tax: MsgSend - Sending from one wallet to another MsgMultiSend - Sending from multiple senders or to multiple receivers (taxed once) MsgSwapSend - Swapping then sending to another wallet MsgExecuteContract - Smart contract transaction MsgExecute - Bundled…

[arunadaybasu]

What I realised two days back is that this is incorrect. The explanation is here. You can ask any other developer also if you wish what I am saying is correct or not.

Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+

I didn’t know the reason behind these figures before this, but I guess I do now, since I had been coding some stuff on LUNC last few weeks. You see, this is a superficial figure and I’ll explain why This is not a true representation of the apps on the chain because coders are using a function called “BroadcastTx” as the primary function for doing anything on the chain. Writing this function is faster than writing a contract and making people execute a contract. Using th…

[Korek_Aksosek]

YES for all 4 ptopositions. I wouldn’t pin my hopes on Terraport. People have sunk their money there, trust is on a low level. We cannot wait with these changes either, because their effects will be felt in some time. I wrote a long time ago that the 0.2 tax satwaka is not optimal. I wrote that 0.5-0.7 at this point is the optimal rate. The money in the community pool is melting away and I see you are making a serious mental error. You assume that LUNC will increase in value. It’s a mistake. It doesn’t have to and can even fall quite hard. It would be good if there was a financial cushion for this time. Otherwise, development will simply stop.

[Tonu_Magi]

Let’s amp up gas fees

[dfunk]

All 4 proposals are Live on Terra Station and Rebel Station!

[gdf1933]

The staking percentage at Lunc is one of the most attractive. Distributing more ‘shitcoins’ won’t attract more followers and investors. We need to focus more on the project’s utility and burning. That’s why all ideas, except for point 1, are interesting.

[madeh]

Another tax proposal, the same people behind it. Vegas and his boys are disgusting. Real bad actors. Do you love shorting memcoiners so much that you can’t help yourself, hoping to repeat the events of the fall once again? Just short PEPE and leave TC to people who don’t want a great L1 chain to become a meme shit.

[Mpowski]

Im happy for all to pass at once. I wouldnt be happy for the community pool funding to go up while the burn remains at measily 0.2%. So thats the only pickle that I can see here. Most likely gonna hold off my vote until the burn tax part is guaranteed to pass, after that everythong else is fine with me.

[dfunk]

@Clan

if you white list all smart contracts, all that’s left that would be subject to burn are peer to peer wallet sends

Peer to peer wallet sends (i.e MsgSend transactions) make up for ~97% volume and therefore burn tax, while smart contract executions (i.e. MsgExecuteContract) make up only ~3% volume and burn tax. This has been discussed in detail here: [Proposal] Exclude Smart Contraction Transactions from the scope of Burn Tax

[Seany22]

A yes to all has been voted for by me.

Well thought out. Good balance.

Dapps whitelist.

I think any cex that burns off chain similar to Binance or any consistent support should also be whitelisted.

But that’s an afterthought.

Good job.

[Tynos]

Any single smart contract will be whitelisted automatically or there will be a supervising “committee” to approve certain projects based on specific criteria?

I have same concerns as Clan’s. Even if for now 97% of volume is coming from wallet transfer, the volume is quite low and I was hoping additional volume to be burned via smart contracts.

Anyway…I know it’s impossible to please everybody

So far all 4 proposals are a good compromise and I hope will pass.

Cheers

[Clan]

@dfunk

Also for your knowledge, staking remains the #1 activity on-chain which is tax exempt so raising tax will not impact ~97% of the on-chain volume.

Here you say that 97% of onchain volume is from staking, which is white listed.

@dfunk

Peer to peer wallet sends (i.e MsgSend transactions) make up for ~97% volume and therefore burn tax,

Here you’re saying 97% of on chain volume is from messagesend functions.

So which is it?

[dfunk]

@Tynos

Any single smart contract will be whitelisted automatically or there will be a supervising “committee” to approve certain projects based on specific criteria?

The 130 validators are all the supervising committee that we need. Whitelisting of dapps can be done via governance proposals the same way Binance whitelisting was done.

@Tynos

I was hoping additional volume to be burned via smart contracts.

If smart contract volume does improve in the future then we can always review the economic policies then. Currently smart contract volumes aren’t impressive.

@Tynos

So far all 4 proposals are a good compromise and I hope will pass.

@Clan

Here you say that 97% of onchain volume is from staking, which is white listed.

Yes, staking is whitelisted indeed (on-chain) but there are many clients (wallets, etc) who are still including burn tax in their transaction fee. Take a look here for instance: Terra Finder

How do you explain 3,000,006.870568 Lunc transaction fee on a MsgDelegate (Staking) transaction? If you study the blocks carefully you will find multiple clients implement burn tax on staking.

@Clan

Here you’re saying 97% of on chain volume is from messagesend functions.

So which is it?

You can review the complete discussion and analysis here: [Proposal] Exclude Smart Contraction Transactions from the scope of Burn Tax

Posting a tiny excerpt from that link here:

@dfunk

In a nutshull,

• ~97% of the burn tax comes from Send Transactions (MsgSend, MsgMultiSend, MsgSwapSend) - particularly MsgSend transactions,
• while only ~3% of the burn tax comes from Contract Executions (MsgExecuteContract, MsgExecute, MsgInstantiateContract) - particularly MsgExecuteContract transactions.

Burn tax on smart contract transactions does more harm than good as it drives away dapps and on-chain utility due to the additional fees and code complexity, while adding very little to the burn amount.

[Clan]

Understood.

Ill retract my earlier statement.

Also, excuse me if my last reply seemed snooty. It was not meant to be, I tried to edit it, but was unable to due to slow mode.

This seems like something I can agree with.

But I pose a statement in closing.

Ethereum has become deflationary due to the chain not white listing smart contract applications from their burn mechanism. So, one the health of the chain is fully restored and volume achieved, will this again become something to amend?

Thanks for the answers. And again, I apologize if my comments seemed hostile at first when I was truly just asking.

[dfunk]

No offence taken and no apologies needed. After all, a healthy discourse is what makes a democracy strong!

@Clan

So, one the health of the chain is fully restored and volume achieved, will this again become something to amend?

Absolutely! We need to adapt as per the circumstances, else we’d become dinosaurs. If MsgContractExecutions becomes the dominant transaction type then we’d need to revise our policies accordingly.

[gargaditya]

True, Am in support of the tax increase to control supply.

But I wonder how many times this goes up for realignment.
One validator thinks his proposal is far more ‘superior’ than others’ which give incentive to CEXs to implement the burn tax.
Also,this validator seems naive to be stating that they are the original ones to come up with the idea of burns/it never existed before. They even claim whitelisting dapps is their brain child & anyone else talking about it is a copycat.

Wonder if the community will want change to 0.5% now and then again to 1.2% as per his proposal which goes up in June.
Also wonder why is that validator not up in arms now since he claimed that proposals must follow FIFO-ones put up first on Agora have sole right to go in first for actual vote.

Finally, my 2 cents, ideally there should have been a 5th item here as placeholder to incentivize CEXs to come on board-perhaps letting the ones who want to adopt a 0.5% tax on their platform(ALL BUY/SELL/CONVERT transactions), where 0.1% is kept with them for being on board with LUNC community and they burn remaining 0.4%.

Regards,
Aditya Garg

[Seany22]

I would feel that Jesusislord prop in June could take a backseat if this one passes. While we gather data on the tax.

I hope jesus agrees this is a good compromise for both sides.

I really want this prop to pass.

[dfunk]

@JESUSisLORD has voted Yes to all 4 proposals btw

[MarkMcDonnell]

There is no reason to increase the burn tax.

Projects like:
@DFClunc, @binance, @Terraport, @Cremation_Coin, @LbunProject and @Lunaspheretoken

Daily Burn Will Easily Find 1 Billion, plus many more projects whose names I forgot (Lunc Casino?).

Burning is on track we need more utility and burning will also increase after parity.

Mark M

Forex Alerts, Trading Signals For 28 Pairs - Forexearlywarning

Rock solid company looking to build 10 forex apps on the blockchain