With respect to the target limit of Luna tokens, letâs say 10b (number is arbitrary), 1 new Luna token can only be minted as long as 2 have been burned previously. That means, while Luna tokens are burned using the tax, the number of UST tokens also can slowly decrease. When the number of Luna tokens is below 10b, there is no limit on minting new tokens (until we reach the ceiling 10b Luna tokens again).
I feel this is a better way to limit the minting process compared to using market caps because measuring the market cap depends on external sources, i.e. different platforms have different prices, resulting in different market caps.
I think we need to support burning, especially since one of the exchanges is already on the side of the community. The author of the topic, add the same proposal to the vote. Perhaps the validators were busy with the new network and could not vote. We need to try again.
Mind f4rt moment: How about when MCAP LUNC < MCAP UST
a) there is a (progressively) higher tax implication for UST transactions which is translated into funds moved towards a LUNC ârebalance/re-peg poolâ (used in reverse for the stabilization of UST once MCAP equilibrium is achieved)
b) a pre-agreed LUNC âburn flexi zoneâ (i.e. 50-100B tokens from the baseline circulation supply) is activated with a burn rate proportional to the MCAP difference propping up the LUNC MCAP. Once equilibrium is achieved they are minted back into the circulation supply also progressively until we meet the baseline circulation supply
c) All of the above
Can we not ask other big exchanges to follow Mexâs example of voting poll to burning trading fee in order to decrease Luna supply? Therefor we can bypass the validators?
[MEXC x LUNA Recovery Plan Voting Poll Result Announcement ]
Dear users, The voting poll for the MEXC x LUNA recovery plan has successfully concluded. After receiving overwhelmingly positive feedback from the community, MEXC is pleased to announce that we âŚ
The voting poll for the MEXC x LUNA recovery plan has successfully concluded.
After receiving overwhelmingly positive feedback from the community, MEXC is pleased to announce that we are the first centralized exchange that goes above and beyond to initiate the LUNA recovery plan.
Over the past 2 days, we have gathered 12,948 valid votes and gained a 98.49% support rate to burn LUNA to decrease LUNA circulation on the secondary market.
MEXC will provide transaction ID proof showing the transfers made to the official burn address on a weekly basis.
MEXC x LUNA Recovery Plan Status Update
BURN Amount
|2022-05-26 â 58,423,888.68 LUNAC
|2022-05-27------- 78,984,757.30 LUNAC
|2022-05-28 ----- 71,204,609.31 LUNAC
MEXC will utilize the actual trading fee received from the [LUNA/USDT ] (Now renamed to [LUNC/USDT spot trading pair to proceed with secondary market buybacks on a daily basis. This plan will last for 1 month, starting from 2022-05-26 to 2022-06-26.
*2. Terra has officially provided a LUNA burn address.MEXC will make arrangements to send LUNA tokens obtained from the secondary buyback of LUNA to the official burn address specified on a daily basis.
*3. MEXC will provide transaction ID proof showing the transfers made to the official burn address on a weekly basis.
DAILY BURN AMOUNT between 58 - 71 million. If we can ask other exchanges to join we could double / triple the daily burning amount
Doesnât sound like a bad idea while weâre trying to take ownership of the classic chainâŚmaybe each one of us sends a nice email to their respective CEX for starters
âShow me the money.â The simplest reason why Do Kwon awarded pre-depeg validators so highly is for 1 SK investor: #hashed (lost over $3.5B). No validators have high #LUNA self-delegation. Itâs to repay hashed.
Validators detain 75% (the top 20 alone get almost 50%)of the power of vote, this means that without many validators backing a proposal, there is no hope to reach the quorum even if every single user vote and agree on the vote.
the power is in the hands of developers and few validators, the right of vote given to the user is more like a fable told to us to make you think you have some ability to influece a decision⌠and like you have seen during the fork they follow their plans and nobody cares of community proposals.
we have a luna2 âburn clubâ validator in the process of starting, we miss delegations.
3% fee of which 2.5% will be used to buy back and burn lunc.
also, by staking with burn club, we get more voting power over terra/luna2 so overall it is a good plan
to move forward, until we figure out how to govern/revive lunc chain.
This is my first reply in this forum and I love the burn idea for LUNAC.
Currently, Terraâs biggest problem is that they donât have funds to eliminate excessive supply and this idea of burning tokens using fee in transactions seems like a good idea to me. However I think it could be done even faster using the tools provided by the exchanges (Savings, StakingâŚ) Terra could contact the exchanges and propose burn 50% of the savings and staking rewards. For example:
You have 1,000,000 LUNAC on Binance, with a 6% API staking
After a year you would earn 60,000 LUNAC, well, with this method you would earn half but the other half would go directly to the burning wallet (30K for you and 30K burn).
I think this, together with the FEE system for transactions, is the best way to reduce the supply since you don´t force any user to send the tokens directly to the burning wallet.
