The apr will go down if more people stake which will also increase the price of the token as there are less in circulation. The pool is filled with the transaction fee
YES, do it immediately.
I am trying too my good friend. You can go vote on the proposal now though, it’s prop 10,983.
Supply Management 101
Are the fees in ‘the pool’ going toward ‘all’ staking/validating rewards or is minting happening to fulfill those rewards?
If those fees are not funding validating/staking (if they are being kept in the pool), then we are minting new coins to supply validating/staking rewards ~ that’s why the burning of coins isn’t doing much good… if we want to lower the supply, we have to lower the validating/staking reward apr% equal to the collected transaction fees and use all those collected fees to fulfill those rewards to prevent minting of new lunc (inflation) ~ (tether the transaction fee charge to the validating/staking apr%), increase the burn tax (start at 5% and lower the percentage as the value of each lunc rises to reduce the loss of value), and attract third-parties to build dapps to attract users with a stellar decentralized core design…
We should be burning high percentages of lunc while each unit is cheap and not rewarding people for staking and validating more than the fees collect allows.
Market caps should be divided into the total supply, not the circulating supply… that would stabilize the price better (along with a stable max supply).
2 Likes
This is a good explanation, thanks!
2 Likes
Some good points in the comments above. Agree with the fact that we need to figure out a way to fund development. Using fees that Binance burns out of their own transaction costs to support our chain does not seem fair for us to decide that we will keep those funds for development and not for burns we agreed to implement them for - feels like bait and switch. Regardless of how we make decisions on the chain, CZ and Binance are an important partner and a huge holder of LUNC supply. We need to take into consideration the way they support LUNC today. This proposal has the right intent, but feels premature and requires additional details in terms of the target amount of funds needed to be raised, as well as discover other means of raising development funds vs. keep 50% of the burn from being burnt…
1 Like
Teams for the community need funding, yes, but everything needs to be transparent.
Do you think it’s fair to mint back voluntary burns? As many people mentioned…do you think Binance will be happy with this proposal? They lose millions of dollars by using the fees to burn and help community and you want to mint back part of those burns?
There are $ 4 000 000 waiting to go for development, there is 10% from all burns minted back and going to development fund.
The main goal is to reduce this huge oversupply and everybody will be happy. Let’s stop launching crazy ideas on minting more LUNC.
5 Likes
This proposal seems premature for me. I think we need more insight if we wanna take this in the right direction.
And our partner (binance) should give an opinion in this matter, that way people will not be scared and stronger bonds will be created.
4 Likes
Binance is free to stake their coins at any time & vote no with veto.
I think community is not in position to be arrogant against CEX which is throwing so much $$ away.
Personally I’m sending all stacking rewards to burn address and if this passes I will stop doing that (and I’m probably not alone).
Seems that keeping LUNA was good decision after all.
EDIT: Binance just burned 6b+ lunc.
3 Likes
Since Binance accounts for a majority of the burn, they should be asked if they are OK with community using 50% of that to fund the community pool. This is a huge NO for me, until CZ weighs in.
2 Likes
Are we using the burn-tax revenue to fulfill staking rewards? I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the truth…
The whole system is in shambles and we need to focus on using what is still operable and good for the community and clearing away everything else.
1 Like
Or they could just stop burning! Thought of that?
1 Like
@Vendrugo ~ maybe the supply was intentionally inflated to provide enough rewards until the burn started (leaked into circulation slowly behind the scenes) and took over…
1 Like
Agreed. After today’s Binance burn we should see a significant increase in seigniorage and CP assets. A no for me.
There is nothing stopping Binance from staking their LUNC & rejecting the proposal. As they have not done that, we can assume that they do not have a problem with it.
Because as I said, they at any time could stake & stop the proposal. Which they have not done.
Maybe some ponzis are still scamming us even now in the rubble… using our system to add interest to their wealth (at our expense) and dip out when the whole thing is exposed…?
We need to decentralize the Terra Station and build a stable core that gets shared. No access to the core on any decentralized node can happen without passing two voting phases (governance).
You know where to read about that big, new idea.
1 Like
The Twilight Zone
Can we prove that our Terra Station is decentralized now? Or, are the keys to our wallets stored in a central location? The area between centralized & decentralized (twilight zone). This can be asked of all cold storage ~ until each station is autonomous and secure only to the owner and that decentralization and security can be proven… (more detail about this in my post called the gold standard of stability ~ as you may have read)…
As the central areas collapse because of fractional reserve banking practices ~ we may soon experience similar events here because of that old, criminal type thinking hidden behind a centralized core that we think is decentralized.
What I am sharing are things to seriously consider ~ considering the current environment that we know we are in now…
1 Like
ok, if this proposal passed, i’ll out all my lunc portofolio, this is the end of LUNC, because greedy. they are thief and planning to steal all our money (all investors).
1 Like