[Proposal] BURN and REMEDY fee with each LUNA transaction 💊 [PART I]

[David_Wedlock]

If it is not the best path why does it even exist???

[killu12258]

explain to me how you sustain half of the volume with taxes.

Not possible.

[ChoboDrone]

Validators have to vote ,even if there is a no.

[dfunk]

Do we have anyone from the dev team looking at this? It’ll be great to have some of the devs weighing in on this.

[HelloThere]

There is even Abstain option XD

[godspiral]

CZ may have 51%+ voting power due to high binance volume. Or at least would if there is massive burn.

He’s right that v1 chain will continue existing, and that current exchange token will remain v1.

@dokwon 's fork proposal should be changed to give 0 benefits to current v1 holders. Just original may 8 luna/ust holders. Current v1 holders can get benefits by keeping/improving v1 chain as they wish. Many will hold both v1 and v2 tokens, and there’s no reason they shouldn’t be cooperative with each other.

[ChoboDrone]

The big issue is that a new fork would make almost every investor to go away cause trust is lost…

I know that all investors want their money back , but it will not happen with new fork…thats the worst idea ever, even I consider that a scam if you think with your mind at ease…
Im a medium investor in a lot of coins and if one coin goes down or fall devs have to find the best solution without altering the course to bring it up, it will take months or years to return to its glory but TRUST will be regain.

[HelloThere]

I’m also against the fork. Salvaging what we have (amazing ecosystem most projects envy) and building new opinion about Terra. Fork will probably kill our chances to get listed on major exchanges.

[David_Wedlock]

If every time something went wrong it was scrapped and new one started how would the crypto gain a good reputation and build its self up.

I don’t agree with a fork, i do agree with fixing what they have and building it back bigger and better than before and regaining the trust of everyone in the process.

[HelloThere]

Exacly

[Mysolo]

Here, I bought for 503K from Luna. I put $ 140 and voted for.

https://finder.terra.oney/mainnet/tx/20e126142c40ee3742687106b46568e464ebe6032bc86deff39632c27f4eff3f

[dfunk]

I just wanted to give a shout out to this proposal for aiming to eliminate bad debt from the Terra economy:

Burn The Remaining UST in the Community Pool + Cross-Chain Liquidity Incentive UST

Background Context Following the material and ongoing UST peg deviation over the past several days, inflated swap spreads via the Terra protocol’s market module to absorb the overhang of the UST supply have created extreme pressure on LUNA’s price. Currently, the burning of UST is too slow to keep pace with the demand for excess UST to exit the system, which is hindered by the BasePool size. Prop 1164, currently live on Terra Station, helps resolve the bottleneck issue of burning UST by: Inc…

Seems like a step in the right direction to regaining trust.

[dragon]

Applying a tax on-chain swap when market cap of LUNA < market cap of UST sounds good to me.

It sounds crazy, but what about freezing ALL terra transactions but LUNA->UST on-chain swaps when market cap of LUNA < market cap of UST?

• This would be Terra “Emergency mode” and just triggered when the ecosystem is on risk, provoking a temporal “playpen”.
• CEXes would be incentivized to apply the tax because otherwise their deposit and withdrawals would be frozen.
• UST would be converted to a medium-risk currency, and investors should know that it could be temporarily de-pegged sometimes.
• There would be always people willing to convert their luna to ust by a higher fee, to speculate.
• If this works, it’ll be triggered temporarily in exceptional occasions.

[2071]

Thats why the burning rate can be a function of the circulating supply. As the circulating supply drops, the burning rate drops, until we reach our target circulating supply. We then remove the burning function.

It is formulated in this sheet:

LUNA and UST resurrection

[godspiral]

@dfunk

The CEXs have the power because Luna holders failed to meet the debt of UST holders due to systemic flaws and mismanagement. The new fork will have zero value until the debt is repaid.

Fork includes eliminating UST with rewards/airdrops to UST holders. @dokwon 's proposal is naive in that current governance will not vote for it. First, there must be a fork, then there must be a rewards plan vote, and there is 0 reason to give one cent to v1 holders on the v2 chain. Just holders at the fork snapshot point.

But absolutely, v1 chain should continue existing with governance deciding how to fix v1 according to their interests. CZ having close or above to 51% validation control can/will keep v1 alive. Maybe v1 can give some charity drops to v2 snapshot rekt accounts too.

Either way you can fork and have a new chain if there are enough validators to support it but it won’t go anywhere without CEX’s support.

Osmosis went very far without CEX support. As long as there is an IBC path between v1 and v2, or ATOM then there is an on/off ramp to every CEX.

[HelloThere]

I’ve invited them to work on the solution together.

[TerraLunaPhoenix]

Surely this is the best proposal, the team must take this basis and perfect it.

[HelloThere]

I think so too Its not perfect, but a good place to start

[Hunter]

So far they haven’t done anything…

[HelloThere]

Here is the possible reason:

[Proposal] BURN and REMEDY fee with each LUNA transaction

I’ve read the whole topic, and the only reason I can find to explain why NOBODY before HelloThere has actually made the “burning proposal” was corretly pointed out by Luke17. "I am a traditional finance professional, having worked as a trader for 6 years and now being a portfolio manager for a bank. Given the volumes going on, as a lot of people already stated, any form of “per transaction burn” would be highly effettive in the long term and there is no way no one at the foundation understands…