Parameter Change: Adjust Tax AnteHandler to 75/25% Split from 90/10%

I guess we get into a paradox now…the price doesn’t rebound because there is a huge oversupply and reducing the supply doesn’t work as planned, the dev team wants to be payed but benchmark is in USD. What if lunc goes to 0.00001? We will modify the ante to 100 and will start minting again?

1 Like

Ustc should be the main gas.
All transaction fees ( gas )on chain must use ustc.
To be fair and balanced.
$lunc function as a validator.
$ustc function as a gas.
so that there is a clear reason why I bought ustc.

Yup that’s the complicated or it’s a pain the backside just generally.

The only fixed variables here are:

  1. We need Devs to develop the chain
  2. Devs need paying
  3. Payment will be around $180k or so (I understand)

Anything we do is cool but needs to satisfy the above.

Well …I think it can be worked out on 2 plans simultaneously.
Increase burning tax to reduce the oversupply while devs are working on improving and developing the chain.
Without investors lunc won’t have any visibility. There are so many great and working projects out there, why should I put more money in something that would take centuries to burn through the supply?

Personally I’m not a fan of high taxes. I think all it’ll do is make people more hesitant to move tokens on chain and restrict the motion of tokens but that’s a difference conversation.

So far as this one goes if support the prop at 80/20, will consider 75/25 dependant on what happens to token price in the coming weeks

Correction: at our current 0.2% tax if this proposal passes it’s only a 16.7% reduction in burns (0.18% to 0.15%), for a 150% gain (2.5x) in community pool funding from the tax (from 0.02% to 0.05%).

I am currently trying to submit the prop but having some errors, and seeking help. Once that is resolved the proposal will be up for vote.

I got it solved, the vote is up on Station under proposal #11394.

Vote YES if you agree with a 75/25% split of the on-chain tax to help fund more LUNC development.

Vote NO if you disagree and want to keep the current 90/10% split of the on-chain tax.

Please cast your votes, thank you.

1 Like

Indirectly you are reducing burn tax to support CP. No with veto from me.

Yes with our 0.2% tax if this proposal passes burns will decline 16.7% on-chain to gain a 150% increase in CP tax funding, which we need to fund the chain.

We can always increase the tax overall to increase burns, but many oppose this, though I support raising the tax also.

We have basic funding needs of our chain that need to be met, and a 75/25% split is a fair and effective tax split which allows us a good funding rate to afford what spending proposals we need, and still has good burns with 3/4 of the tax.

I support a 0.4% to 1.5% on-chain tax, and will vote YES to the 0.8% if it’s put up for vote. Whether a raise in tax would pass now is uncertain, but we need to do something now about our funding needs. A 75/25% split is good now and good later if the tax is raised.

We have a lot of funding needs such as the L1 Team and expansion, L2 Team, continued legal advice for the chain (latest Matt’s Market space announcement from L1TF and TGF), and we need to fund the oracle staking rewards pool.

If we do nothing at this time our funding rate is not good and is insufficient for the chain’s needs.

The existing burn rate should be reflective of this proposal cause as it appears we are going backwards again! Increase the burn rate to at least .6 and both burn and CP move forward.

I would support that but we can do the 75/25% now to achieve a good funding rate for our needs with only a 16.7% drop in burns (from 0.18% to 0.15%).

Later if the community approves a higher tax rate we could have better burns and funding. But whether this would pass is uncertain, as many in the community oppose a tax raise.

I believe a 75/25% is good right now with our 0.2% tax, and good also if the community approves a tax raise (which I support).

Our funding needs require a better % split now, and if the tax is raised that 25% of the funding should stay the same because we do have big funding needs with LUNC, as I mentioned what they were in previous posts.

A 75/25% split gives us a good sustainable split now and into the future. That’s my view and why I made the proposal and funded it.

And again… lunc price keep falling and we will keep increase the funding?
There should be a red line somewhere. Lumc burns are kind of irrelevant now as will take decades to make a dent in this oversupply.

Shouldn’t we be thinking more than a single quarter ahead? Planning for a rainy day or for larger initiatives. The way things go around here, if we do need more funds, by the time all the bickering is done around here it will be 6 months before anything is approved.

1 Like

سلام لطفا هرچه سریعتر مالیات را به 0/03%برسانید و 80% درصد ان را بسوزانید و 20% ان را خرج ارتقا و پمپ شبکه کنید این بهترین پیشنهاد است.

With LUNC at around $0.00012, our current funding rate of approximately 330M LUNC per month is only worth 39.6k USD or $118,800 per quarter.

As the L1 Team was paid $141,750 for quarter one, we have a $22,950 shortfall. We can’t even fund the L1 Team with our current funding rate! This is not good.

If the community votes to pass my proposal #11394 for a 75/25 split we will earn about 510M LUNC per month $61,200 or $183,600 per quarter.

If we pass this prop instead of being a $22,950 shortfall to fund the L1 Team we can fund the L1 Team and have a $41,850 surplus. The only cost of this is 16.7% of on-chain burns. This is a good compromise. If the community wants more burns they can always vote to raise the tax.

This 41.8k surplus can pay for the legal advice that the community, L1TF and TGF need, as well as possible expansion of L1 Team or an L2 team.

I believe this is a very needed proposal. Please cast your votes. Regards.

“The only cost of this is 16.7% of on-chain burns”
At this point burning mechanism is the only one bringing hope for a price increase. It is quite sad that we have to rely on third parties burning the most (Binance and voluntary burns).
Burning mechanism should be top priority for LUNC.
What if price decrease by another 50% in one week? We will adjust the ante rate again?
What if the price increase 50% in one week? We will adjust it?

@Tynos no we should keep the 75/25% split for the long term, as we have many things to fund even when the LUNC price rises, including the oracle rewards pool.

If the community wants more burns they can raise the tax. I support this. This proposal is about the tax split. There is a prop in discussion for a 0.8% tax. If this 75/25% prop passes then the 0.8% tax would be 0.6% burn (3.33x our burns) and 0.2% CP funding (4x our CP funding if 75/25% passes).

This 75/25% is not just because the price of LUNC is low, it’s a good split for the long term.

I hope you’re right. Me personally I stopped pouring money in this black hole since 10983 prop passed and although the “amazing idea” of minting was cancelled I still don’t feel comfortable in investing more.

Your intentions are good. I agree that there is more into current efforts than just burn.
Yet, the burn issue is surrrounded with many controversy. Dont touch it even with a 4 feet pole.
Whatever is utility funding related, I am 100% for it, but we must investigate other funding methods.
As suggested, increasing gas fees might be a solution.

Will vote “no” but dont feel discouraged.
We need to shake the status quo, true.
Just there are things that the community doesnt want messing up, and this burn issue is one of those.

@Tynos minting was a horrible disaster. I was shocked to see the removal of the 1.2% after 3 weeks for 0.2% and 10% mint. Then I was appalled at 10983 the 50% mint passing which was a huge insult against Binance. Thankfully after they threatened to pull support the community woke up and put a stop to it. LUNC is going to have an amazing future and I believe a solid funding rate for the betterment of the chain that respects burns is part of that.

We already increased gas fees 5x and we could do another 2x to bring fees to around 60 to 120 per transaction. When gas fees upgraded it broke a lot of things and took a while to get working so it’s not the simplest option. I also support a gas fee raise but for extra funding, not instead of this 75/25% split.

Yeah people have a lot of issues with anything to do with the tax, but I’m interested in what I believe is best for LUNC, and I believe this is a good split for the long term. If people are mad about a 16.7% drop in burns to fund the chain then put up a reasonable tax raise prop, I will vote for it.

1 Like