Proposal 5234 needs to change the 10% seigniorage pool

Governance & Proposals
1

Please correct me if I’m wrong but when proposal 5234 was promoted, most of the people, including myself, thought that 10% seigniorage/minting will be apply only to on-chain transaction. One month later it seems that 10% minting applies to voluntary burns too, including Binance.

I don’t think it is fair to mint 10% from all the voluntary burns. Binance is losing tens of millions USD in fees to help the LUNC community and 10% of that volume is minted back. People, including myself, are doing voluntary burns and 10% is minted back. Probably there is no coincidence that Binance decided to move the LUNC burning from weekly to monthly and I am afraid at some point might decide to stop completely. This week stakebin showed no green candle in supply because Binace did not provide any LUNC burning. In December when Binance will do its monthly burning, we will see a huge volume of LUNC minted back and that will put additional pressure on prices and trust that LUNC community can lower the oversupply.

We must modify the parameters in such a way that there will be no seigniorage/minting from voluntary burns. LUNC has a huge oversupply and we must do whatever it takes to lower this oversupply and provide investors confidence that we can do it.

1 Like
2

I agree!

3

Lunc is ded now if total supply equal circulation supply, im re think maybe lunc back

https://classiclunatic.com/supply.php?t=1

4

I also agree. Or we need ask Binance if they voluntary agrees to give some of his fees to our devs

5

Agree. There is more than enough Lunc coming to community pool from 0.2% tax. What is coming to burning address voluntarily should be excluded from that.

6

Agree with this. Thake 10% from the burn tax of 0,2% can be OK, but take it from also from voluntary burn is unacceptable.

1 Like
7

Just put up a proposal to reduce seigniorage from 10% to, let’s say, 1%.

8

I have created the proposal 10886. Not sure how all this governance works so if somebody wants to make a proper one with more arguments and logic please go ahead. All I am trying to do is to make the things right…I have absolute no problem with 10% set aside from on-chain transactions, devs cannot work for free but I find it completely unfair to apply this percentage to voluntary burns.

10886 | Text proposal

Deposit

Proposal 5234 - 10% tax revenue (Seigniorage) only from on-chain burns NOT from voluntary burns

Submitted 11 days ago

Proposal 5234 brought additional lawyer of confusion. First mistake was to initiate this proposal less than a month after the 1.2% burn tax. Second mistake was/is that the Seigniorage (10% tax revenue) is collected/minted from all the burns, including the voluntary ones, including Binance’s voluntary burns. The Seigniorage SHOULD be collected ONLY from on-chain transaction.

9

I don’t have an issue with the percentage but the pool it applies from. Devs needs to be payed that’s for sure and this is why they will get 10% out of 0.2% burns due to on-chain transactions. The problem is that the proposal 5234 as it is now, mints back 10% (seigniorage) from all the burns, including voluntary, including Binance’s. This has to be stopped…voluntary burns, including Binance’s must be burn 100% with no seignorage, no minting back anything.

10

Support.

11

:slightly_smiling_face: easy steal pool whales hhehehe