Parameter Change: Increase RewardPolicy rate_min to 0.5

Our community pool is drastically underfunded relative to our market cap. This is extremely problematic as it reduces the community’s ability to fund large, capital intensive projects via community spend proposals. As a community led chain, it is now an imperative that we ensure the community pool be well funded.

I am proposing changing the RewardPolicy rate_min to 0.5. This will allow 50% of all burn transactions in a given epoch to be minted into the community pool at the end of said epoch.

Primary Benefits:

  • Rapid bootstrapping of the Community Pool’s capital on hand.
    • Under the current rate_min of 0.1, from 11/21/22 to 11/28/2
      • Approximately 41,182,921 LUNC and 26,099 USTC will be allocated to be minted to the community pool.
    • Under the proposed rate_min of 0.5 for that same seven day time period
      • Approximately 205,914,604 LUNC and 130,497 USTC would have been allocated to be minted to the community pool.
        • This is an increase in 7 day community pool revenues of 164,731,683 LUNC 104,398 USTC.
          • An effective increase of 400% for both LUNC & USTC respectively.
  • Once sufficiently capitalized, the LUNC community will have capital on hand to truly contemplate undertaking the work required to finish rebuilding the ecosystem.
  • Self reliance, a well capitalized pool will allow the LUNC community to rely solely on itself for funding Dev work and ecosystem re-build out.

Parameter Changes Required:
“subspace”: “treasury”,
“key”: “RewardPolicy”,
“value”: “{“rate_min”: “0.5”, “rate_max”: “0.5”, “cap”:{“denom”: “unused”, “amount”: “0” }, “change_rate_max”: “0.0”}”

Posted by Cosmos Capybara
Twitter handle: @CosmosCapybara

Burn tax and burn transaction amounts were found using (Thank you Happy Catty!)
The parameter changes were provided by @ek826

Quantitative Breakout
RewardPolicy Change Projection - Google Sheets


This is extremely important to fund the further development of this community chain. The parameter can be changed in the future when pool is sufficiently funded.


I’m in


Yes that is of course an option down the road. But as you said, current priority is funding further development of the chain.

Without a well developed chain, it does not matter how much we burn. And in order to have a well developed chain we need to hire devs. And to hire devs we need money.


41M LUNC is approximately $6500/week and $26000/month. This may seem like a lot, but keep in mind that the market cap is $1000000000.

I believe that allocating money towards the Community Pool will in turn increase the price in LUNC. My vote is yes.


So supply will never come down then?

What about taxing validators rewards with 1% instead?


Supply will come down at 50% of taxation at source.

Also the other 50% will go to building projects that can burn a lot more than the 50%.

Think of it this way…

You can burn $100 and it’s gone forever or you can burn $50 and use $50 to build something that will burn $10 a week for the rest of they year. A net gain in burn terms of $510 over the year… a literal 10x or more burning capacity.


I support this proposal. I think it is essential for the future of the chain that we use a significant portion of the tax revenue for the future maintenance and development of the chain (core and L2 initiatives).


Do we have Binance opinion on reminting 50% of burnt by them?


@_raydeStar yes this is important to point out. While our community pool may seem big, in the grand scheme it is extremely small.

@Atom1 thank you for pointing this out to @Jetam. Investing in utility will drive a greater burn rate over time than a higher burn % but less utility.

@raider7019 thank you my friend.


I support this proposal as well!


Same support from here

1 Like

I don’t agree with this proposal.

This proposal is now live for voting as prop 10,983.


I am agaisnt we need to reduce the supply fast, 10% is more than enough…
What we need is get TLF to burn their 1.9 billion USTC with 10% of that in the community pool (9.5million dollars we could fund allot.)
And will also help UST to repeg.


Increase in the amount of tokens in circulation is unacceptable


I agree. We just need to have a tighter budget to navigate through the bear market


I agree with this proposal.


Why are you voting to give the Terra Rebels 30% of the ETH value without the necessary details (of past, present, & future codings) that are required to verify the justification of the transfer?


That’s not what this is.

@Miguel_Portela okay please let me know when you get DK to agree to that.