Parameter Change: Increase RewardPolicy rate_min to 0.5

This proposal will end LUNC if Binance pulls support.

3 Likes

Good Read…

https://wiki.c2.com/?PrematureOptimization

1 Like

If an identity NFT linked to each wallet is created, a more decentralized system can be created in which the validators would only focus on validating transactions and guaranteeing the security of the network without having a system that gives percentages of power based on the amount of tokens they own. This means that anyone regardless of whether they have 1 dollar or 1 million have the same voting value.

But decentralization does not end here. This only would be one of the most important factors. The cryptocurrency market continues to be controlled and influenced by governments that can make its value fluctuate at will, by influencers, false news or with bad intentions. This should not be like that. Blockchains should only be influenced internally by the events that happen within them.

Terra does not yet have a DEX that is good enough to compete with one from CEX

You cant be serious. Binance’s staking alone would drain the Oracle Pool. And bam, Validators are gone. And Bam the chain crashes. Do you understand that Binance’s 0.2% gift is off-chain or am I wrong. If I am right, your statement needs to be retracted, You are biting the finger that feeds LUNC.

4 Likes

How will these rewards be spent specifically? My understanding is proposals need to pass to access community pool funds. Is there a concrete plan for deploying the community pool funds this proposal will generate? I’m concerned passing this proposal will mint a substantial amount of LUNC that will sit idly in the pool while the community debates how to spend it.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to pass a plan/budget for spending community pool funds first and then secure the funding? This proposal feels rushed and a bit “give money now and ask questions later.” Shouldn’t there have been a text proposal first?

Lastly, as other members have pointed out, it is provocative towards Binance to essentially siphon away half of their LUNC trading fees.

This proposal only contemplates changing RewardPolicy rate_min to 0.5

2 Likes

Hi, sneed. I think that we should talk about this prop with Bianace and we have to confirm that Binance agrees with this.

1 Like

Me too, deposited for it and full spport!

I’m sorry. I disagree with this prop in this time.

Community pool was filled with 680+ million lunc today. This is 120k$+. Isn’t that enough for one month? Those inflows are on monthly basis.

3 Likes

Totally agree with Jetam. Especially if we recover half of the burn, no one made burn, binance included. And at this time there will be less tax in the community pool.

I think cz removelist lunc ustc more good for binance tr is hit rip lunc, whales steal money now only

Good idea, but I will support this proposition only if we increase percentage of tax burn, cause we want to lower circulating supply AND make sure development is paid. Current tax burn level is doing nothing even for long term perceptive - we need to increase it anyway. Why hit goal from one side, if we can hit it from both sides?

Or they can simply stop burning lunc any time they feel like it and avoid the trouble of staking a big chunk of lunc…
It is easier for them to simply say… no problem … no more burning from us.

2 Likes

So are we just praying Binance doesn’t cut support? Gambling ending LUNC on this?

1 Like

A big
images

3 Likes

You unfortunately have a large knowledge gap my friend.

3 Likes

Can you please fill us in then? Right now this proposal is scary as hell to me!

Binance can can stop burning whenever they please. If they do not agree with donating 50% of their monthly gift to community pool they can simply stop sending to burn address.

Has CZ been consulted on this? What am I missing?

3 Likes

Please fill in the gap before I vote.

2 Likes

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