How would you whitelist dapps that aren’t even made yet or contracts that haven’t.
Validators are the chains gatekeepers and part of that gatekeeping is having duties to progress and update as the circumstances change.
1 Like
One of the benefits and advantages of parity is devs can literally copy paste their projects from other chains to Lunc, making it alluring for them to join because of how easy it is, with this they have to go through several more steps, and even can get declined, so what good is parity now? 
It’s like we’re taking 2 steps forward then 3 steps back all the time 
. I hope we can fix this. The OP said it was possible to whitelist broadly before but there are loopholes, maybe try to eliminate these loopholes, instead of having all devs make proposals first like having to do job interviews?
Did you read what you wrote? They can copy-pasta themselves on chain.
Whitelisting of their dapp is up to them.
Not all chains are equal and not all chains offer tax exemptions or have taxes.
It is entirely optional to use this feature for dapps or go full hog.
You just proved what you went out to disapprove
1 Like
Luna 2.0 has parity - do you know how many dapps are on it? what are the transaction volumes? and how much is the transaction fee for Luna 2.0?
You can find some answers here: StakeBin | Terra
<300 Luna earned from tx fees per day from <15k transactions per day on most days.
At current market price of Luna that’s less than $300 a day. That’s less than $27k for 90 days (a quarter) - not enough to cover our dev costs.
Rather than hoping for “what if” type of scenarios, let’s look at the data at hand and make decisions accordingly. If those dapps do come on board, they can surely get whitelisted, should the validators approve.
4 Likes
Yes, almost every dev can move their apps easily to lunc (thanks to parity) but they have to extra steps to get special treatment (thanks to this proposal).
No you disproved your own statement 
I said we should make it AS EASY AS POSSIBLE for ALL DEVS to join, OPEN THE GATES AS OPEN AS POSSIBLE, MAKE IT AS ALLURING AND TEMPTING AS POSSIBLE TO JOIN, THAT IS THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF PARITY. BUT YOU PEOPLE SAY NO, YOU CAN JOIN, BUT THESE ARE MORE HURDLES YOU HAVE TO DO TO JOIN AND BE TREATED LIKE CERTAIN D-APPS TO GET THE HIGH PRIZE OF WHITELISTED, TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT IT’S YOUR OWN CHOICE , you can choose to do it or not it’s up to you 
. You can even get declined to get the special treatment, when before the new rule you are all equals. HOW IS THAT ENCOURAGING . We should treat them as equals like before these 4 new proposals and that’s the main spirit of parity. You people are hopeless if you still can’t see the point I’m trying to make . We struggled a year to achieve parity, now we get a stepback.
I agree to some of these proposals, but if I was a dev, and I had to go through the trouble of writing agoras or proposals for persuading and politically numbing lobbying a whole community to get special treatment, and even possibly get humiliated by rejection for every single app I go forward with, I would look elsewhere to another chain. I agree to proposal number 3 if only proposal number 4 is made easily as possible for all devs equally.
Ok. Tax raised.
How you can move this coins from exchanges to chain?
Where you find tokens for ustc staking?
yeah, see, you might not know this, but applying for anything is not a new concept.
But if you want everyone to be equal - put up a prop to remove burn tax. It’s that simple.
Having a keyboard rager with caps lock doesn’t actually welcome dapps 
Wow is this all dapps make on LUNA? How are people expecting LUNA dapps to burn our supply for us? I thought that was a useless plan before but the figures are much less than I expected. Even with perfect parity and if all their dapps came over it wouldn’t bring much based on their own numbers on LUNA. Good info thank you @dfunk.
5 Likes
You gotta be kidding me 
dApps are not about burning, they are about adding value to the chain and use cases to the coins. Please, keep your meme-vibes away from LUNC for a bit.
4 Likes
You need to practice reading Wagner, as I referred to the plan for Dapps to burn our supply as a useless plan. Dapps themselves are not useless, and are useful utility, but should not be expected as a means to significantly reduce our supply. Hence whitelisting them is appropriate, while focusing on a more suitable burning strategy, such as the plan I propose.
3 Likes
That’s why you are a danger to this chain. Dfunk posted that data and right after that you go create a post copying his data to justify your plan.
https://twitter.com/forthecross_ch/status/1658108997705121795?s=46&t=0qSoqY5Ll3BJPYLClvtJWQ
Do you need a tissue Wagner? I’m raising awareness of important information, which is directly relevant to my proposal coming up for vote. I know you hate to see my proposal gain support, but that’s your personal issue and lack of sound judgement. You say I’m a danger to the chain because I shared public information relevant to my proposal? StakeBin | Terra. You’re hysterical in how much you unjustifiably hate my proposal Wagner, because you hate burning and love minting. You can keep jumping up and down with your toddler tantrums but it won’t stop me from advocating for my plan.
1 Like
The thing is, you can’t put on paper that the volume on Luna 2.0 and Terra Classic will be the same.
If you wanna advocate against bringing utility to the chain, at least do it with actual numbers, by comparing the volume on both chains first, then using that volume as base of calculations.
You are deceiving people with those numbers to have your plan gain traction while rising to power at the same time.
LUNC is up 1.13% in the last 24h. 
Meanwhile the rest of crypto is pumping anywhere from 50% to 5000%.
Lmao at thinking LUNC’s price movement has anything to do with these proposals.
5 Likes
There is no deception I made. Also, I want utility on-chain, I just don’t have the deluded view they can down burn our supply for us.
I said this in my Tweet, “LUNA V2 with its parity and all its dapps, those dapps only bring in around $300 a day (320 LUNA) from transaction fees.” This is a factual statement.
You’re just enraged that dfunk shared those figures and I am amplifying them to the community, and that it goes against the anti-burn utility crowd whom you support.
My point was that dapps cannot burn our supply. Even if you got ALL the LUNA V2 dapps and doubled their volume for being on LUNC, it’s still tiny and cannot in any way burn our supply.
I know this is upsetting to utility maxi’s, but they’ve been living in a dreamland for some time.
But let’s go with your claim: LUNA V2’s average daily on-chain volume over the last week is around 5M LUNA, which is $4,600,000 per day.
LUNC’s average on-chain volume per day is 15B LUNC or $1,320,000 per day.
LUNA V2 has 3.5x our on-chain volume. So if they are making $300 a day from their dapps, maybe we can make $100 per day if they all came over.
How’s that for you Wagner? Even worse than what I stated. Got anything else to complain about?
@xtreme-modding see above.
1 Like
Its been a while so that burn tax increase will be a interesting experiment and IMO its going to prove that the burn tax wont do anything about burning the supply (i hope i am wrong). Luna2 does not have a burn tax, those are transaction fees only which on Lunc are cheaper than Luna2.
The burn tax is dependent on the volume , the bullish point of parity was that when new projects come they will increase the on chain volume which will increase the burns. If you raise the tax and then whitelist the projects that will utilize the chain there will be no difference in the burn amount , all that its going to do is make it more expensive for the average user to interact.
As i said before, better have a 0.02% burn tax but on all the On/Off volume than 1-5-10% on 0.5% of the total volume. (My opinion) .
Also the argument that the reduction of the 1.2% tax caused the price to drop is invalid , the price made a 5x because of re enabled staking with 30% APY at the time and people expecting the CEX’s to onboard with the burn tax to quickly recover the supply issue which didnt happen.
I do agree with all 3 other proposals and also am curious what the effect of the new burn tax will be, on the bright side that would ~4x the community pool income which is necessary for the future of the chain.
The next parabolic catalyst will be the UST repeg if CEX’s get onboard but only time will tell.
Good luck!
1 Like
Yes I can see… Eth -2.3% BTC -0.74
In fact the whole market is down. Not up 50-500000000% or whatever figure you claim today.
Cant figure out if your for burns, against burns or just anti any prop that isn’t yours.
I’ve always given you and your team benefit of doubt as I like some of your ideas.
But I’m nearly positive that u are as the community says and just a troll. Shame really.
Would be nice if you could prove me wrong and you could produce a prop like this one or parity where positive sentiment and faith and volume start returning to the chain.
2 Likes
Nope. Market cap of crypto has decreased by 0.87% from yesterday.
Stagnant at 1.1 trillion. Meaning that no new money hasn’t flown in.
% comparisons are cute, right? Quite easy to lose a zero if you have 10. 1000% gains. Try to raise BTC by 50% however…
What “actual” markets are you talking about in the other thread?
Those are NOT actual markets?
What exactly was the meaning of what you just said?
Obviously no new money has flowed in. Cause it flowed out. I just showed you. And you’re arguing that those are not actual markets?
Are you out of your mind or do not believe what you are looking at with your own eyes?
This is why most influencers talk shit about us. This is the level of disbelief.
Seems you confused the threads there, punjabi?
Zoom out from 24hrs view. Do tell me what token has made new ATH’s or has gained significantly in actual $ or rupee value
Top gainer today is AGLD. Up 11%, but down over 40% from ATH. Is this what you call a pumping market?