I can’t believe that 86 validators have not cast their vote on this proposal that may fundermentally determine the path of this network. Why do people become a validator if they have no intention to exercise the voting power delegated to them?
2 Likes
The off-chain assets were the fastest way to fund development… it could be managed to generate revenue and further fund development.
But instead of doing the basic and choosing new keyholders, the community opted to create several proposals about how to use the assets - all non-enforceable, cause the community doesn’t control the multisig.
The governance chaos is delaying the development, not the lack of funds in CP or off-chain.
3 Likes
Hi Bro, we need the new order all processed again before creating a proposal. It will look good. The thing burn can’t mint again because if you do that, you lose trust in burning. If you want to increase the community pool, let’s create the proposal and take action before the burn, not after the burn
1 Like
This is great! We just deployed our game and cant wait for other builders to follow.
This was actually implemented? Because new mint is 50% of burned amount!
bad idea
It was mentioned that before any implementation, Edward will get the OK from CZ (Binance). It seems this was another lie and 10983 was implemented without any consultation with CZ. I get people are getting greedy but 0.5 out of 0 is still 0. There are already consistent funds for developments ($4 mil, seigniorage from the burns, etc) and devs should focus on oversupply decreasing and utilities not getting the biggest slice from the pie. I am so disappointed by validators who voted YES to this proposal and I am losing my hope in this project.
Back and forth, back and forth… When will there finally be a tax management mechanism? The lack of consistency is a big downside and confuses new players, and old ones still pay when and how they want. Binance - YES has a weakness and a large LUNC bag, besides, I don’t need arithmetic formulas and grants to calculate the basic parameters. I know that LUNC => LUNO (Luna ONE) will launch from March 2023, it is the most depreciated CRYPTO in the world. LUNA has been kept under water for too long… Don’t worry buddy they will pay for their future wealth, if not they will regret it very much 
Another lie…they mentioned CZ from Binance will be onboard before implementing but it never happened. Same like the proposal 5234 when they failed to mentioned that the seigniorage will be apply to voluntary burns too
Do you have any updates on Binance? Based on your words, you assured us that before implementing the proposal you will get CZ’s feedback. Proposal was implemented already and as expected no words about Binance. Was it a lie? Was it this misinformation on purpose?
Great idea , burn rate can fix this supply issue in long term.!
I do not have any updates, as I’m not really following the aftermath of the prop. You may have misread what I wrote, I never assured anyone I would personally get CZ’s feedback, I merely said that Edward Kim stated, at the time, that Binance would be made aware of the prop if it seemed like it would pass.
You wrote “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”
I am not sure how to interpret your statement. When proposal was discussed, you were pretty sure that we will have Binance’s feedback before implementation. Now both you and Edward are completely quiet on this topic.
Nice job to all who came with that idea of 50% re-minting! Now you will get zero from that instead of 10%. And instead of burning all Binance will now burn only 50% of fees.
How could you be so dam stupid. No wonder this whole project is not moving any where.
4 Likes
be sure to undelegate from those who voted yes on this like
Interstellar Lounge
TCB @THORmaximalist - 0%
Orion.Money
LUNC DAO 
BTC.Secure | 100% guarantee of rewards by Staking Services Agreement
1 Like
Not really…people and validators that voted like sheeps for that proposal are to blame.
Me personally I printed the list of validators who voted yes for prop 10983 and pinned the list next to my monitor just to be sure I won’t ever stake with them.
4 Likes