Here is a simple solution! Have two burn addresses.
First address is .1% and other is .5% community mint.
Let the donors choose how they want funds distributed!
2 Likes
If you have an idea to change the pass %, then I suggest that you raise an Agora and start discussing that. As it stands, 50% is the pass mark.
The proposal is not madness, it’s a proposal to make the chain self-sustaining. Isn’t the definition of madness doing the same thing and expecting a different result? I give you, the tax to burn.
@Dannavan_Morrison & @godoal ~
Since you guys brought it up ~ here is a possible solution to unequal voting powers:
Also, we have a DEX coming that will help our burning efforts… and, the .5% will at least stay in our pool.
this proposal would be only good if there was a secure way to guarantee that all these funds will indeed fund teams to produce meaningful and helpful ideas for the development of the chain.
Since we don’t have that guarantee, these funds will go to newly created or “fake” teams that will create a copy-paste product and might not do anything in the end, which will result in draining these funds. And so we won’t have the burn of the tokens plus the teams can sell the tokens whenever they want to fund themselves.
In which way have you taken measures to block such kind of activity and what rules, if any, are there that dictate the allocation of these funds and the prevention of big whales “money” voting to receive the funds. How is the allocation happening and is there such a system.
I did answer that; but I will repeat the answer once again.
Validators get their voting power based on the total number of coins people like you and me delegate to them. They also change their vote on various proposals based on how the people delegating with them want to vote on various proposals.
It is not their coins that give them voting power but OURS. If you disagree with the vote cast by a validator, your beef is with the people delegating with them not the validator itself. Also if you feel very strongly against how your fellow delegators on the same validator vote you can move your voting influence a.k.a delegated coins via “redelegate” to another validator you feel have an aligned view with you.
Our chain operates on three pillars of power often referred to as the holy triangle (or trinity) of power. Each has the power to block/control the others from over-exerting their influence and unintentionally, or otherwise, harm the chain. The three pillars are:
- Validators (you know who these are)
- Delegators (that is US)
- Developers (various Dev teams on the chain)
Again, the above means it is OUR responsibility to monitor and control what the other two are doing, using the method mentioned in the first paragraph!
1 Like
@godoal ~ Also, if delegators vote on their own behalf with their delegated Lunc (the Lunc they delegate to validators) those validators can no longer use those votes toward their voting preference.
If every delegator votes on their own behalf, we still have whales who can control things anonymously. So, we need reform that limits voting powers and more equally distributes those powers.
2 Likes
You can still re-delegate if your validators consistently don’t take part in the voting process. I can see the Yes/No voted validators in the proposals am interested…but you are right there are some that don’t show up and it’s uber annoying.
All delegators are stakeholders in the chain. Wales (as big stakeholders) have more to lose at the same time so it’s in their best interest to tread carefully in order to support proposals that will definitely maximize their holdings.
Yes, but what if the whale wants to bring down the system and is prepared to lose money to bring it down? Say a central bank that is a competing system that can print unlimited funds at the tax payers’ expense… it’s something to consider. Or, maybe the whale wants full control of the system for whatever reason that hurts the little fish…
how will that something burn $10 a week? are we talking about another token that will be created by some team or what?
A bit far-fetched don’t you think 
Elon and Twitter come to mind…
While on the theme of the far-fetched scenarios, I would love to see an Elon/Gates wale gobble up the remaining supply and a bit more…if a CZ 6B burn gives a pump imagine the latter. You won’t see many holders complaining then…
Please review and comment on my proposal for donated burns. I believe the donor should choose the community pool allocation percent.
@godoal ~ Controlling the system in a way that hurts the ‘little fish’ so the whales profit in the short-term isn’t far fetched… although bringing it down may be… also, look at history ~ good things are always hijacked and destroyed by power hungry fools who want temporary power over systems people use, those fools brought those systems down, most of our past systems fall in that category!
1 Like
And how do delegators get them do this? I have often heard Validators say “I am voting YES or NO on this proposal” and they do. When they vote on a proposal and delegators vote after, how does it change the voting power of the validator. Also, if the validator has already voted on a proposal, does re-delegating affect the voting power of that validator on that proposal?
When devs ,validators and special interest groups join hand in hand with each other what can the other delegators do? Un-delegate our tokens and then what? The controlling power of the “trinity” is questionable, There has to be a better way of controlling voting powers. TFL validator group if my memory serves me right single handedly used its voting power to pass a proposal on the “old LUNA chain”. This gain is quite possible.
Here I am divided.In my opinion, Ed should clarify this with Binance beforehand. I voted against it, but I can still change my mind. Especially since CZ talks a lot about “BUIDL”, he could support this vote. I think he will wait and see how the distribution of funds to which developers go and what comes out.
Validators cast their vote based on how the majority of the people staking/delegating with them vote. It is the means for them to keep business (a.k.a people keep delegating with them and NOT run away). That is the power of control we delegators have against them.
We still have the power to intervene, TFL had a big staking power in the chain and hence could use its influence to pass easier some proposals or deny others but they could still be vetoed. Now we are on the other extreme where if a proposal is denied the author tries again with v2,v3,v4 and so on which is lame and speaks poorly for our community. Also does not help that some new validators have a background as influencers (in contrast to the business attitude of the legacy validators) which means they have a large number of blind followers rather than responsible delegators casting their votes to their master wishes.
Get as many coins as you can and re-delegate them to the Validators that consistently respond (in your opinion) correctly to the proposals that matter to you.
This proposal makes no sense without prior approval from Binance. If Binance terminates its burn efforts because the community’s focus is shifting away from burning in favor of funding development the idea of burning is at stake altogether.
Why should Binance continue to burn its own fees while all others’ combined contributions will be negligible? The community pool has greatly benefited from the Binance.burn lastly. You bite the hand that feeds you…
There is something utterly wrong in the way governance is put to work here. There is no point in voting on important matters with incomplete information and before all stakeholders are heard.
1 Like
So we try to persuade CEX’s to burn LUNC and then vote to mint? Am I missing something? I voted No.
2 Likes
If community pool needs funding why not use the 4.1 million to go buy lunc and deposit in the community pool and we won’t need this…
because the money is tainted and TR could get dragged through court if they take the 4.1M this is why they want nothing to do with it.
I say we increase burns back to 1.2%, then you have 0.12% tax anyway…
1 Like