Parameter Change: Increase RewardPolicy rate_min to 0.5

Please fill in the gap before I vote.


Given that the burn has been significantly reduced to 0.2% instead of 1.2%, and given that TR have been more and more vocal about needing funds so much so that, if I remember correctly, they would like to go on a pay per project basis now, it’s all the more important to replenish the community pool in order for us to be able to fund the development of the chain or any other initiative

As much as I would like the burn tax to be augmented, it won’t be anytime soon in my opinion, so we might as well use 50% of the burn to fund development
The burn is abysmal at 0.2%, it won’t do anything meaningful in a long time, we need some initial development work to be done first, to pay for the v23, to be able to profit from IBC reopening, and then attract dApps
But to make any choice and then fund those choices for these matters, we need funds in the community pool, we could still chose to burn the excess in the community pool once the essential projects will be funded, and the parameter could be changed once we won’t need such a drastic % going to the community pool

Some people here are worried about “minting” more tokens, while it’s just about reducing an already minimal burn, the circulating supply will still drop little by little.
I’ll repeat again, the burn won’t do anything meaningful in our current state. We might as well spare half of the burn to put it to good, productive use.

For those concerned about Binance, Edward Kim said he would make sure everything is crystal clear with Binance if that proposal should look like it would pass, we’ll see how Binance’s feedback goes then, but this might be done in time to get feedback before a decision is passed

No dev plan details or costs yet so many people want more money to fund what isn’t yet known… :face_with_spiral_eyes:

Less fundraising discussions ~ more development discussions!


Burn & Plan Development

By the time we have the dev plans in place to be worked on ~ our community pool will be looking great.

If anything related to funds needs to be changed, it’s the percentage burned ~ raise it while Lunc is cheap and less value is lost per burn. And, convert and burn the community owned ETH wallet.


Really. We need LFG/contracts/oracle ustc burns. Very important thing for 1.0.

P.S. I’m vote Yes.


Something better is in the works:

1 Like


1 Like

We continue to put the cart before the horse. I will not vote until I get the feedback from CZ. We continue to put proposals and counter proposals. If all passed what do we do?

why do you not supporting?

Whe the hell You are trying to annihilate LUNC? Proposals like this one, along with all supporting it Validators are cancer of community.


This proposal will likely destroy all earlier efforts and is going to be cause to further sell off.
I do not agree with You statements.

  1. We do have money to pay develeoppers, we do mint already to community pool at end of every epoch.
  2. We do not need more money for develeoppers. Every developper which can prove his work can ask for a grant. As a matter of fact we have problem to spend money in right way.
  3. There is no any Proof of (developpers) work mechanism by which their involvement could be accounted for. Before taking the Honey, first proven hard work required. Than - see point two. As an employer, I expect my employees to work first, than after achieving expected results I pay them, not the other way around.
  4. Who cares big bag of money, that can’t be spent in a right way? Only scammers will.
  5. This proposal will eliminate virtually the entire effect of burning. I wouldn’t be surprised if, after a positive vote, Binance stopped supporting LUNC burning altogether.

The tax cut was supposed to attract new apps and utilities - how many of them came along with that? 0. It was just as bad a decision as this proposal.


Cross in general then burning and release the coins per month again on trillion.Make this coin again inflationary.And in three months Lunc will cost 0.000001.Who supported this proposal, he wants to destroy Lunc.Apparently you do not understand, but the inflation coin will always decrease in price.

Inflation devaluation is a simple market cap division effect.

A group of people change the rules as they please. It turns out only Bitcoin is truly decentralized. Everything else is scam.

There was a marketing promotion of a 1.2% incineration tax. People sold their coins. Now a group of people are trying to get the coins back with various fraudulent schemes.

Let me add a #6: we have off-chain assets waiting to be handed over for development purposes (as soon as people stop delivering proposal on how to deliver those assets and focus on basic, choosing new multisig keyholders)

I hope validators who voted YES reconsider till the deadline.


@gdf1933 ~ We can design a decentralized, self-sustaining core and still validate blocks using the PoS method.

Of course, the community will be fully responsible to accept, construct, adjust until optimized, and protect that core for as long as it exists. That’s life.

scammers v. Producers.

1 Like

You cannot be serious about it. Do you really think that Binance would move bilions of coin just to stop a proposal? Is it a joke right?

If they are not happy with it they will just stop the burns. Reason why you should have not put the proposal without 1) listen to community feedbacks 2) ask for binance opinion on that.

1 Like

We’re not saying that devs should not get paid, but through this, it’s just not right.


Our pool is growing nicely the way things are… people are just doing things to do things… maybe they just need a job?