Here are a list of things we need funding for LUNC and why I believe 75/25% split of the tax is good now and into the future:
It’s difficult to make any changes to the tax but we have to be real about the needs of the chain.
I agree that we need to adjust the tax antehandler, but I think this can only work well if it goes hand in hand with an increase in the burn tax.
There is a parameter prop for 0.8% waiting and ready for voting stage at anytime. If it goes up I will vote YES for it. If we pass the 75/25% for me my next priority is a tax raise also, which depends if the community supports it.
I dont think changing the burn tax would be a good thing in the long run. We need to burn as mutch as possible.
But i have a couple of Ideas.
I disagree as I believe taking an appropriate portion (25%) of the on-chain tax to sustainably fund the chain and its needs is a good idea.
That would need to be voluntary. If you propose a mandatory haircut on staking rewards its almost certain to not pass governance (based on other such proposals which did not get support).
More people staking already lowers the staking rewards as all rewards come from the oracle pool. Without funding this pool all rewards will drop quickly over time. We need a funding stream for the oracle rewards pool which my proposal gives if we also raise the tax later.
This does not fund the chain, but only increases burning and is unlikely to pass unless voluntary.
If the option was voluntary with an advanced feature to either burn or send to the CP a portion of your staking rewards. But this relies on voluntary charity to run the chain and is unlikely to deliver suitable volumes.
Using a small portion of the tax is much better as everyone contributes by using the chain. If people want more burns the answer is simple, raise the overall tax. A 75/25% split gives us the funding stream we need while leaving burns at 3/4. If this proposal passes, if we even raise the tax to even 0.4%, burns are 0.3% (instead of 0.18% now) and CP is 0.10% (2x).
So any raise of the overall tax will almost certainly compensate for the 16.7% decline we initially experience in burns by choosing the 75/25% funding split. The tax AnteHandler was made for a reason so we could appropriately fund the chain by the tax.
The initial 90/10% is too lean for our needs and 75/25% is a wise adjustment in my view given the long term funding needs of the LUNC chain.
The OP funding should come from the tx fees, that was recently increased 5x… we need utility, not new tax splits
If I remember correctly lunc community has some $4 000 000. Why can’t we use those money for funding chain development and maintanance?
Read the OP I talked about how we recently increased gas by 5x and that is not enough for our needs.
Those funds are tied up and will take significant time to release due to needing numerous selections of willing validator members needing to take a multi sig role with legal risks and legal advice that will take time, as well as issues of how to convert the ETH into LUNC. So don’t expect that soon.
That’s why we need to attract utility on-chain instead of keep meddling with the burn tax …
People have been trying to attract utility on-chain for months and it hasn’t produced much results, let alone something that is going to fund the chain itself.
We don’t need outside funding sources for LUNC to fund our own chain. If people can get over their almost PTSD like issues with the tax being touched we can have a better more sustainable funding rate.
Also, funding can help us with an L2 Team to make it easier for utility to come on the chain, and with funding we can incentivise utility on chain.
I’m not exactly sure what awesome utility you expect to appear by doing nothing and having no money to afford any work on chain?
With information like this spreading about prop #11394, people are being misled with false information into thinking this prop could harm our relationship with Binance.
Let me make it clear, as I already did in the wording of the proposal. There is no minting here. This proposal does not change the overall tax rate of 0.2%. This proposal only adjusts the tax split from 90/10% to 75/25% to help fund the LUNC chain for its needs.
This proposal does not effect Binance, they don’t need to do anything or make any changes. We will not lose Binance support or even bother them by passing this proposal. Please be informed.
Rejected.
I see there is a new proposal to increase the burn percentage so I guess your proposal is not necessary if this one pass.
11397 | Parameter change proposal
Voting
I voted YES for the 0.8% tax and believe it would go perfectly with my 75/25% split, giving a 0.6% burn and 0.2% community pool funding rate.
We have need for a higher funding rate and more burns. We have a lot of uses for funding and should not keep the tax split at 10% only. Combining my prop 11394 with the 0.8% tax prop 11397 is a great combination and what I was originally aiming for based on my validator roadmap.
In my opinion, after everything that happened with Binance halting burns and fails with the burn tax adjustments so far, there is no chance of those kinds of proposal to pass without the approval of the L1 team (and thats a good thing) .
We would have enough funding for Q2 if you also take into account the USTC that is in the CP. That said i voted abstain on both proposals but i personally do appreciate the idea and your work!
I personally would like to see how things will go after we update to V2 and the new app releases that are going to come on chain (Eg. Terraport) and then decide if we need adjustments in the mid of Q2.
We should not have changed the 1.2% tax that fast IMO but because of the ignorance of most of the validators we are here now and are lucky that Binance decided to give us a second chance (after the ridiculous 50/50 split , still cant believe how that joke proposal passed) but there wont be a 3rd IMO so we need to be careful with throwing ideas left and right that sound good but ignoring the negatives that might come after. (Overall speaking, not directed to this particular proposal).
@TheBulgarian if we keep running at a funding rate below even the cost of the L1 Team, and hope for dapps to fund our chain instead of doing it ourselves with our existing tax, how can the L1 have any confidence when putting up their Q2 proposal or additional proposals?
If they wanted to ask for more money or take on more members for the team how could they ask for this with a funding rate that can’t even fund them as it is on a sustainable basis?
How are we going to get the full time legal advice the L1 and TGF are requesting to work on the chain safely without personal consequences for themselves if we don’t raise the funding rate?
The initial legal advice prop is going to be 20k, but full time legal advice is what they want for the chain, to be compliant with SEC and other regulations. A member of the TGF already posted in this thread they are aware of this proposal.
The L1 Team talked about having an L2 Team to incentivise dapps on chain and utility? A member from the L1 Team also said they want to be paid more than 3 months at a time for job security.
Where are we going to get the money for all this?
The L1 Team has hinted clearly at needing more funding. They don’t have to come out and sponsor a proposal for the community to realise what is going on and get the job done…
Also we have a continually declining oracle staking rewards pool.
It seems very clear to me this prop is needed and good for LUNC, but we will see if the community agrees in 4 days time.
I personally have a different view on this, instead of going back and forward adjusting burns and what not which in my opinion will do nothing just drive investors away, the focus should be on building the chain and getting reasons for new investors to actually invest and drive the price up. If you increase the CP tax to 2x and the price goes down 2x isnt it the same? If the devs need more funding they should ask the community and validators to help instead, if you really believe in this project wouldn’t you help with the funding?
Majority of the staked people are just hoarding rewards and draining the CP bringing sell pressure to the coin and with the burn tax not being able to compensate the difference, the price goes down and it shows. Instead of burning the coins people should just donate it to the dev wallet, that would be a lot more helpful at this point of time IMO.
All the tax proposals would make sense if the tax was applied ON and OFF chain, until the tax is applied only ON chain, any adjustments would not make any difference or will have negative effects.
I do like your proposal more than the burn tax increase because if the CP gets overfunded(hopefully one day) we can always make a fund proposal and send the excess to the burn wallet but until
someone from the L1 team announces the need for any tax changes, i dont think it would pass.
Just as a thought, imagine if the top 10 validators (Sadly they hold the majority at this moment and a lot of the other validators run at a loss) contribute 10% of the fees to the L1 team, or those in the top with 0% commision, increase it to 5% (anyway the prop passed) and just donate it to the L1 team, wouldnt that be enough funding?
With all due respect, just my opinion.
I’m running a competition for the L1 Team that’s gone on for a week on Twitter ending in a few hours. I do believe in supporting the L1 Team.
Relying on donations is not going to work unfortunately as we will not bring in enough funding. Donations are good for extra expenses for the L1 Team, but right now no public donation address has been released.
Under my proposal with the 75/25% split of the 0.2% tax instead of the current 90/10%, we go from approximately 4M per day to 10M LUNC per day in funding to the CP.
We can’t expect 10M LUNC per day in donations. We have a tax, we have a parameterised tax split mechanism, we should use them to fund the chain.
In addition giving to the L1 Team is good, to help additional or unforeseen expenses they may encounter.
I think the main issue here is people have a lot of issues with the tax at all. It has only been changed once, from 1.2% to 0.2%, but people act like we’ve changed it 5 times. I think there’s a lot of irrational thought and behaviour here fuelled by Twitter.
We need rational action to fund ourselves as a chain. No we shouldn’t adjust lower than 75/25% split even if the price declines. We need the 25% split to fund all the needs of the chain. I listed many of them out. 10% of the tax is not going to be enough. It’s definitely not enough now.
I did see your event on twitter and do believe that you genuinely want to help the chain, just thought i would throw my view in.
Thank you and good luck with the prop!
There is less than one day before this prop #11394 closes and many validators have not yet voted.
Validators please cast your votes! We need good voting turn out.
Thank you. Christopher.
