I have to disagree with you⌠Once the concept of burning gets into implementation, FOMO will kick in that even 30% tax will be considered still very appealing to buy. However, you donât want to open a door for speculation at high supply circulation where they buy and dump after a 20% increase in price. Buying at lower prices should be taxed at a higher rate so âholdingâ is encouraged and dumping is discouraged. As the circulating supply drops, and price improves, we drop the tax so buying would still be appealing to investors.
5 Likes
I believe this is the most painless and effective solution at the moment.
You have to take into consideration that no exchange will let you be on their ground with such a high fee. But there is no correct answer in the current situation ;/
1 Like
I agree. Thatâs why I kept it open for designing in the sheet through the Maximum Burning Rate:
I modified it to 10% which I believe is reasonable. The time horizon though will be longer to achieve the target circulating supply.
4 Likes
What do you think other voters doing right now? Are they seriously thinking about this proposal or are they ignoring? Why so silent 
?
Fully agree with this proposal!
Without willing investors all projects are doomed to fail. This proposal will keep willing investors alive at least for a very long time both for new and old investors. Plus, victims of this crash will benefit from new investors money. Beacuse by taxing them, some of tax income directly goes to previous victims. So there is a mutual interest. New investors wont care about the taxes because of the very high potential. This is sustainable for a very long time beacuse the deflationary system and the starting hype will keep the price rising even in a bear market.
On the other hand forking will result in flee of investors and value, trust and reputation will be gone totally.
7 Likes
Hopefully this will pass. There is no more we can do than show this idea to as many people as we can. The decision is in the hands of validators and the team.
8 Likes
why no help people relative to the supply? Would make everybody equal
Itâs literally signposted at every turn. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose. Did you?
I was not informed I would be diluted 
I am a computer scientist and not economist, but to me this looks like the most logical approach. There shouldâve been a burn tax all along to trigger deflationary behavior, to counteract the inflationary behavior caused by the coupling of LUNA-UST. Perhaps this was the deficiency of the previous system.
2 Likes
good proposal, burning needs to happen in order to save the luna project. sometimes throwing extra packages is the only way to save the ship from drowning.
2 Likes
Is there anyone that would like to share their opinion about this idea?
And the death spiral must be stopped by limiting redemptions when LUNA market cap is under UST number.
1 Like
problem about this is
- many exchanges wonât implement such taxes, tokenomics.
- with fees you wont have the same volume. Most likely you wont even have 20 million of volume a day, because traders cant trade anymore.
this is what we exactly need
Burning decreases supply and the estimated market cap at the time of transaction, causing an increase in price. This can provide incentive for LUNA to preserve its market cap. The % of tax and maximum size of transactions have to be adjusted dynamically to ensure that no amount of available capital in the network can cause a depegging to occur. This is certainly programmable.
1 Like
These are definitely concerns. But the worst case is we are where we are now. The best case is it works. Since thereâs no harm, why not do it while discussing other fixes?