Proposal #5002 - De-list LUNC from Binance

Governance & Proposals
1

Summary
The message is straightforward. De-list LUNC from Binance since they are not supporting our community.

Motivation
Since LUNC is a community-driven asset, an entity such as Binance can either support us or not. Since they dominate the market with the amount of LUNC they have, we need to ensure that nobody can manipulate the community’s wishes.

Proposal
We need to send a solid message to Binance that the community is not to be toyed with and that community wishes need to be respected. De-list LUNC from Binance, NOW!

I will increase the deposit of a text proposal based on your replies.

4 Likes
2

A little drastic. Binance appears to still be supporting the on-chain 1.2 Tax. Let another CEX like MEXC lead by example. We can always rally behind and applaud the first mover without shooting ourselves in the foot.

4 Likes
3

Thank you, I still believe that this is worth voting for, so that community can voice their opinions and provide us with the clear path it has in its sight, since Binance is not exact on the points they make and answers they provide.

2 Likes
4

Agreed. No need to list on any CEX if there is no burn. This makes it a lose-lose scenario anyways, so why bother? Binance has the unique position of leading by example…

6 Likes
5

I don’t think it’s necessary. Binance CZ just tweeted if they want to add 1.2% to the platform and let users choose whether or not to do so. Binance CZ has been supportive, it’s just a matter of time.

7 Likes
6

And what if most of the trade is done by the bots, how are the statistics calculated anyway ? Are they also going to include this as an option in their API or is it a placebo just like putting a button on the crosswalks that does nothing? Are they going to put this as a default option while trading, or not… Just some thoughts to consider… Edit: Welcome to the community, congrats on the first post!

3 Likes
7
5 Likes
8

Awesome, thanks! I have decided to fund the proposal (will take a few days for funds to accumulate), even if it passes with a “No”, it will be worth the vote. We need more information like this, and a better insight to situation. Please continue the discussion. I will take a look at the link provided, as soon as I get some free time.

1 Like
9

“Will Binance support the LUNC burn of 1.2% for every trade on Binance?” I got asked this question [on my Twitter space]today. I spoke for a few minutes about it, but I want to take some time to answer this more in-depth, and actions we will take.

A while back, I was asked about the LUNC burn on Twitter, and I responded that the project needs to implement it on chain first. This comment was a bit open to interpretation, and many people thought this meant that if it happens on-chain, Binance will implement all LUNC burning off-chain too. This is a wrong interpretation. I didn’t make any promises. My comment was simply that, as a business, we wouldn’t even consider implementing something that isn’t done on the protocol level first. Now, let’s consider it.

Taxes on Centralized Exchanges

We need to think about the game theory involved. Everyone may want all platforms and chains to burn 1.2% at every transaction. People want to see supply decrease, but things change when it directly impacts their balance. Unless we can get every centralized exchange worldwide to implement this, it will not work.

If Binance charged 1.2% per transaction, I don’t think we would burn very much because most LUNC traders would go to other exchanges that don’t have the burn. I could be wrong.

So, we will listen to our community. We will do the following:

Step 1. We will implement an opt-in button, for people to opt-in to pay a 1.2% tax for their LUNC trading.

Step 2. When the opt-in accounts reach a holding of 25% of the total LUNC held on Binance, we start to charge 1.2% tax for all opt-in traders when they trade LUNC. This prevents people who don’t hold LUNC to affect the votes. It also gives the early adopters peace of mind that they are not the only few paying an extra 1.2%. The tax only kicks in at 25% quorum. This should encourage them to opt in more easily.

Step 3. When the opt-in traders reach 50% of the total LUNC trading volume on Binance, we will roll out the 1.2% trading tax for all LUNC trading. This prevents large LUNC whales who may hold large amounts, but don’t actively trade to influence votes.

If the threshold for Step 2 cannot be reached within a month of the completion of Step 1, or falls back below the threshold in the future, we will remove the opt-in feature to keep to a simpler user-experience.

We believe this is the most scientific way to “vote” by our traders. We listen to and protect our users. Thank you for your support!

CZ

CEO @Binance

3 Likes
10

Balanced proposal. Put’s the decision back into the hands of the community. Chess well played.

3 Likes
11

Step 1. We will implement an opt-in button for people to pay a 1.2% tax for their LUNC trading.

  • Sounds OK; however, it needs to be put forward clearly so there is no chance that anyone who trades LUNC with Binance can miss this button or ignore it. Instead, the users should be asked whether to opt-in or opt-out only if we have clear statistics (regarding who is using API and who is manually trading).

Step 2. When the opt-in accounts reach a holding of 25% of the total LUNC held on Binance,

  • STOP! How many LUNC belong to Binance, how many LUNC is traded manually, and how many LUNC is traded by the bots?

  • According to this document, 6.43 trillion LUNC has been moved back from Binance. #BINANCE HOT WALLET HAS MOVED 6.43 TRILLION #LUNC 🤷‍♂️ WE NEED TO PREPARE FOR ALL OUTCOMES! - crypto today info

  • let’s assume that that is the maximum amount of LUNC and that all of that LUNC belongs to different people (not just one person).

  • This means that the opt-in accounts need to hold 6430000000000/4 = 1607500000000 LUNC, which is currently priced at $406,816,326.40 (almost half a billion USD!). Although, if the daily volume is considered ($300,206,039), 25% could be reached within a week.

  • However, Binance was never transparent regarding the hot wallet, and we do not know whether it belongs to one person, a few individuals or a group of people. We also do not know whether and how LUNC price is manipulated or why, so it may not be in the best interest of the big-bag holders to opt-in the burn.

we start to charge 1.2% tax for all opt-in traders when they trade LUNC. This prevents people who don’t hold LUNC from affecting the votes.

  • Sounds OK, assuming that the previous steps are working fine.

It also gives the early adopters peace of mind that they are not the only few paying an extra 1.2%.

  • Not entirely. It raises more issues and questions. Since Binance was never transparent about the hot wallet, and they are playing with our trust, there is simply no peace of mind.

The tax only kicks in at 25% quorum. This should encourage them to opt-in more easily.

  • If

Step 3. When the opt-in traders reach 50% of the total LUNC trading volume on Binance,

  • What is the total LUNC trading volume on Binance? When does the period start, and when does it end? This step is not clear and can be interpreted in different ways.

we will roll out the 1.2% trading tax for all LUNC trading. This prevents large LUNC whales who may hold large amounts but don’t actively trade to influence votes.

  • This is a contradiction to statement 2. since statement 2 does not consider the whale manipulation.

In my humble opinion, since there is no transparency, the public interests of proposals 1. and 2. contradict each other. Since things can be interpreted differently, it is still best to de-list LUNC from Binance and let the others who can solve the issue and support the community do their work correctly.

What we will probably experience with Binance is just one back-stab after another.

2 Likes
12

Fantastic idea. This is the only way that it will work

3 Likes
13

you can beat your feet into the ground all you want you get nothing
:warning:Please note that a vote for anything outside the blockchain itself - like off-chain things, forcing exchange doing something, etc - it’s just a SCAM proposal, and even pass cannot obtain absolutely nothing.:no_entry: Governance wasn’t made for anything outside the chain itself.

2 Likes
14

What do you think this proposal will achieve?

Yeah, we are gonna ensure that all transactions (on and off-chain) are being “burn-taxed”. Good. But at what cost? If we deIist Lunc from Binance, what kind of repercussion will it have? Do you really think that all that Lunc will happily move to another CEX? Do you really think that the transaction volume will not drop? Do you really think that the market cap will not bottom?

We have so much to lose if we deIist Lunc from Binance. I agree that they are not cooperating right now, but they are somewhat still supporting us.

My opinion if this proposal passes: the price of Lunc will tank and will never recover. Other CEXs will voluntarily deIist Lunc. No institutional investor will come. Retail investor won’t even be aware of Lunc. Is this the worst-case scenario? Yes. But what is the best-case one? We will tax every transaction. And that is it…

Reducing the total supply is meaningless by itself. And this kind of proposal wants to achieve just that, no matter what.

5 Likes
15

Good point, please make sure to vote a NO. I know I will vote YES.

2 Likes
16

New coins that come into crypto want to be listed on as many exchange as possible. Being listed by major exchange like binance equals more eyes on lunc , more trading volume, and the community grows. Lunc grew in less than 4 month. There is still more work and growth left, de-listing lunc from any major exchanges won’t help and Lunc will crush over night. I first invested in doge because I saw doge trading along side btc eth on binance, doge was the cheapest and I threw money at it.

6 Likes
17

Yeah I agree with your concerns and would like to see clear and precise framework of what CZ is promoting so the data cant be manipulated and is fully transparent to the whole crypto community.

I would NOT support De Listing from Binance, that would be more harmful when there are other options yet to be explored.

Fully understand Binance CZ position regarding the Traders on the CEXs and would like to see an adjusted TRADING TAX be negotiated with an algorithm for traders and their level of frequency.

Could be something that is built upon as a starting point and scales up over a time period.

Example ONLY
Month 1 : 0.1%
Month 2 : 0.2%
Month 3 : 0.3%
Month 4 : 0.4%
Month 5 : 0.5%
Month 6 : 0.6%
Month 7 : 0.7%
Month 8 : 0.8%
Month 9 : 0.9%
Month 10 : 1.0%
Month 11 : 1.1%
Month 12 : 1.2%
Month 13 and beyond : 1.2%

It goes against the Code of Governance that the Lunc Community has come to expect and it is annoying that CEX Traders who can come and go is being used by the CEXs and influencing the community expectations when as per CZs own words that “CEXs should remain Neutral”

Ultimately it will also require 100% support and adoption from all CEXs globally so there is no safe harbor that circumvents the Withdrawal and Deposit Burn tax or that of a Trading Tax OFF CHAIN.

Food for thought.

5 Likes
18

Use 1.2% from the blockchain to show our support on binance, direct the 1.2% burn to USTC that will be used to Opt in and buy back Lunc on binance and hold it there to make the treehold so it trigger the 1.2% proposal from CZ, if required, split the amount on smaller wallet on binance that Opt in for the 1.2% burn on Binance, sell/buy spot there to burn some of it if needed and show we are actif as a whole.

1 Like
19

I will, soon, make an anti-thesis to this proposal (as soon as I am done collecting $$ for this one, can take up to 7 days at the rate I am staking).

The anti-thesis proposal would be the “whale handshake”, meaning, asking HappyCattyCrypto and similar big-bag holders to support the community and do as they are told by Binance, by transfering LUNC to Binance. Although I am personally against any manipulations and would rather see LUNC de-listed while dealing with the consequences, I think that community should always have the choice. The CZ proposal points 2 and 3 can be interpreted in different ways, and one of the ways is manipulation. Another way is an invite for a LUNC handshake from big-bag holders in section 2 and the community from the section 3, since it is an aspect that contradicts itself… Lets face the facts, there is no science involved and nothing scientific about something where the null as well as the alternate hypothesis lead to a same outcome (that is, Binance not implementing the off-chain burn).

1 Like
20

Mate you do what ever you think is right for you and CZ is doing what he thinks is right for him, I don’t know why your taking this path when all you have to do is move your Luna Classic to another exchange. This proposal should be vetoed, this proposal is a personal issue not a community issue as everyone who has Luna Classic at Binance has the choice to move them.

Soon you will have no nose and only burnt bridges !!!

2 Likes