When tax vurn was reduced from 1.2% to 0.2% was done based on some âmachine learningâ charts showing that volune will go to the moon. We all know ot never happened.I am very skeptical LUNC will âeasilyâ burn 1 billiion per day (we are waiting for long time for this to happen). If indeed some super nega extra dapps want to come to this chain they will be whitelisted (part of the current proposals). Some people are acting like LUNC is top 10 chain and everybody wants to build on it but reality is totally different (marketcap ranking shows it). Few people are willing to build on a chain going into oblivion. For now LUNC is hyperinflated and burning efforts along with utility should be main focus. All these 4 props are a good conpeomise
0.5 percent is too less to cause dent in supply,we need 1.2 percent.
2.Majority volume is on CEX,I dont understand why any of the proposers never signal giving CEX a small % should they adopt burn tax on ALL BUY/SELL/CONVERT transactions.
Itâs been 9 days since my last comment, since the lunc price has dropped by about 20%-30% and the value of the community pool has dropped by the same. New projects if they are under construction. Terraport doesnât work until now. Even if it works in the future, people will only come for their money. No sane person would invest in it. If the price drops continue at the current level, we may have serious financial problems. Raising the tax to 0.5 is still competitive and would attract small investors. This would also solve the community pool issue. Still YES to all 4 proposals.
I totally agree with you but 0.5 is better than 0.2. there were some attempts to raise the tax back to 1.2 but those props were voted down unfortunately.
Gladly, I use stakebin for overall daily burn amount but go to each individual burner to verify on places like lunc.tech or lunc dash for individual checks of transactions, burning is accelletaring from 20 million per day into the hundreds of millions per day right now!
The acceleration is not positive. Lot of volumes now because price is crashing. Lots of traders getting out of their positions so it makes sense to see an increase of volumes and burns
@MarkMcDonnell Yes, burning does seem to accelerate, but it is likely that the additional burns are caused by an increase in volatility and not so much by dapp volume.
Even if we were to assume projects like DFLunc as a factor in the additional burns, here is the smart contract address for the CW20 DFC token: Terra Finder
A preliminary analysis of 1 hour sample data reveals that approximately ~164,000 Lunc was burned in an hour by DFCLunc. Extrapolating this to 24 hours implies a burn of just ~4 Million LUNC in 24 hours - which is quite insignificant (less than 5% of the total burns).
Would love to see some on-chain data proving otherwise.
Alot more burning can be done with efficient burn mechanism at lower prices, you could burn 15% more easily with simple algorithm at 0.2%, current burn mechanism is inefficient. Ths is being emplyed on other blockchains.
Fuel consumption is worse than pathetic and 15% wonât please anyone. There will still be issues with the community pool. LUNC is about to go bankrupt. There is currently $83,500 in the community pool, which is not even enough to pay L1. Development has practically stopped. I donât know if you realize how serious the situation is.
Accept this proposal so that we donât go bankrupt and then come up with whatever you want. But protect LUNC from insolvency. I ask you to. What do you think will happen in 2 months? At this rate, MAYBE weâll raise money for L1 ONLY and wipe the community pools down to 0.
Burns are important but right now at lower levels boosting coins in OP and CP is important as if the price can rise we can bank some good coins now wait for the price to go up.
Thatâs the Oracle Pool, not the Community Pool. And just because it wonât hit 0 doesnât meant itâs not a problem - the OP rewards will get to a point where validators wonât have a financial incentive to keep their nodes open. Once that happens most will shut down and leave. This is a problem no one talks about or wants to address, despite it being an existential issue for the chain itself.
I donât know how Edward Kim counted it. This cannot be counted. Hypothetical situation. The LUNC price is ~ constant for 2 months. Suddenly in the 3rd in the 2nd half the price suddenly drops 30% like this week. Everything that was received and was in CP is worth 30% less. We will not make up for this loss in time. Thatâs why you need a safety airbag. I donât know what Edward Kimâs assumptions were, maybe he assumed the price would hold ~constantly, and then thatâs correct. But the reality has proved different price is falling and may continue to fall for a long time. It will never be completely empty, but the money will be definitely not enough, for example, in 2 months it will be $90,000 and then what will we do?
