@Dexit don’t be so childish
@gdf1933 bad idea.
@premiero please try to be polite
@Dannavan_Morrison i will not edit it.
And where I was not? Because I don’t agree with Your proposal? Or is it because I care about our future and call things by their names?
2 Likes
I am really sorry to see that you reply to all comments/feedbacks with arrogance.
Actually, I am even more concern about the fact that you have not addressed any of the doubts raised, having no respect for those who have an opinion different than yours and are just trying to understand if you have taken all the aspects of this proposal into consideration.
Still hoping to see a thoughtfull reply on whether you really considered the potential loss of binance burns into the equation and your opinion on that (you could address this by adding a small paragraph at the end of your post here).
Cheers
2 Likes
If Binance stops burning…
You will rather have 50% in fees from 800m lunc burned per month instead 10% from 6.8b lunc burned (with Binance burn) per month.
So rather 400m than 680m lunc.
Math simply doesn’t end up here.
4 Likes
This proposal seems wise
Burning was an interesting narrative to generate attention and to retain the assistance of CZ
But now it’s best to divert some to fund the Community Pool and support real building
1 Like
Bad idea.
This would drain liquidity from the Oracle Pool.
We don’t need this proposal and will most definitively make Binance stop burning as they dont do it to see half of their income disappear in the Community Pool. The 10% of all burns already goes to the Community Pool and with current burn volumes this will be enough. We just had 650M added last week because of the Binance Burn. Please retract this proposal. Or else maybe the validators can stop it by voting NO. I know I will…
6 Likes
Totally agree that Binance opinion is important BEFORE to put that proposal on the table.
Undelegated 2 days ago. Hopefully I can get out before Binance weighs in. FYY I 100% support paying DEVs, just not making assumptions over 80% of LUNC current funding. This is preposterous to do before support of Binance.
2 Likes
CZ in any case stop it, if he doesn’t have his interest, we won’t have a agreement.
The love of money will destroy LUNC. Most validators are just voting for their self interest. There is too much power given to validators. Decentralized governance ? Give me a break. What we have is basically validators’ governance.
4 Likes
Hay we not lower the tax while FED continue to increase the interest rate for fix the inflation, tax protect Lunc values. this proposal very bad idea. When Lunc collapsed the problem like fiat systems what you gonna do to fix inflation problem , tax propose is stop and reduce transactions to reduce Lunc’a Inflation rate this is why Lunc 10x when tax proposal passed the vote. WTF you are doing?
2 Likes
So what will the benefits to the community pool be used for??
1 Like
You have the wrong end of the stick on this specific point mate 
Validators only gain power through the people delegating with them and voicing their wants/beliefs. They are the vehicle for governance in our chain.
If you disagree with your validator re-delegate your coins to one with an aligned view.
1 Like
I still cannot fathom the push to increase the community pool over burning when in fact after six months there is no proposal put forward to develop the blockchain core. Will the rate of building the blockchain escalate so much that the present community pool and the constant addition be inadequate to pay for such services? When will the point of diminishing return be reached with respect to this funding, funding…? How can we ask for fund when we do not know the cost of a project?
5 Likes
Remember ~ we (decentralizers) are at war with (centralizers).
Tyranny v. Liberty.
We fight miserable people with miserable ideas who are obsessed with controlling others to bring those others down with them… Because otherwise, they are alone and poor and they are alone and poor because they are weak when they are not riding on the backs of the strong.
3 Likes
Instead of finding strength in ethical behavior ~ they steal and destroy because they (centralizers) are either arrogant or ignorant and can’t escape those behaviors because they are easy.
3 Likes
If this proposal passes it will only pass for small %. Such crucial proposals should need at least 70% of votes in their favour.
Stop with that madness before you divide community even more!
There are funds available for at least 2 years of grants or salaries in that controversial eth wallet. Use those!
Resubmit after CZ agrees.
Or carve out off-chain burns for the time being.
I think not. Why do we vote when in fact validators are the ones that will make the big difference? Case in point most voters wanted the 1.2% burn tax to remain but the result speaks for itself. When a group of validators decide in their inner circles what they will vote on, what do we do? Yes, we follow your solution. Then it’s too late for that proposal. The bottom line is that the Validators(Senators) are a centralized group of self-interest individuals.
1 Like