[Proposal] BURN and REMEDY fee with each LUNA transaction šŸ’Š [PART I]

Lolā€¦i thought thatā€™s what u meant

Has anyone tried to ask Elon what he thinks yet?

1 Like

He wonā€™t respond. And if he does it will make too much pressure on the LUNA I think. More then it can handle at the moment. I was just joking with that photo :rocket:

1 Like

I was just curious since the more high profile people in the industry we can get on board with the plan the more chance we might have of getting an answer from terra

1 Like

This is the best proposition that can revive the ecosystem anything else will kill it and jeopardize the entire credibility of the cryptocurrency world.

2 Likes

I got this message from one of the readers here. I wonā€™t disclose her/his username since I didnā€™t yet got agreement for that (offline). Still I think its a good input. I will also add this to interesting comments section*

Here it is:

  • I would agree with @Random that at a time when things are not doing so well, any amount of extra transaction tax would seem difficult, and would discourage rather than encourage buying - at least from an economic standpoint. I do agree that if there are any fees that they should be lower rather than higher. It would be interesting to hear TerraLabā€™s take, and the take of a validator though.

  • I believe when they minted LUNA to be able to purchase and burn UST to contract the supply size in hopes of increasing the demand (value), that those minted coins would no longer be in hand any longer (since they were used in ā€œpurchaseā€ [burn] / ā€œsaleā€ [mint]). I am for lessening the supply of both coins to a point where their market cap price begins to show through in individual coin values again (so I am for burning where fiscally appropriate), but this has to be done in a way that does not violate financial reality (otherwise it would be cooking the books, so mint / burn is really a buy / sell situation in exchanging LUNA / UST). However, if the community pool or some other reserve has a bunch of LUNA that they can pull back off the market that is not been purchased, and put it back in reserve where it will not be exposed to the market (and therefore does not affect the market), then yes, that would help tremendously in bringing the LUNA supply in circulation down (although that may have an adverse effect on UST - they would have to possibly work that one back from a full crash incrementally back up as LUNA comes back up - someone made the comment of maybe targeting UST as a $0.01 cent stable coin for a period of time, that is surely one interesting though).

  • I think recovery is going to be a mid term to longer road, than a shorter one, and in some ways the longer road will allow for a healthier return. I believe that just the fact of not giving up the ship will actually work to instill some confidence in the project by others, and that confidence will regain for each inch of ground that is retaken in terms of bringing value back to the LUNA and UST, and having a more healthy reserve that can handle catastrophic events much better. I believe this is the only way that people will truly see a recovery of LUNA and UST.

  • I did like that you thought through the market pressure angle for controlling high volume transactions. I think having a algorithm in the protocol for mint / burn (for exchanging), as well as selling that responds dynamically to volume (rather than a hard coded value) for the Terra blockchain would help slow down to a reasonable pace those transactions that could create a run and quick loss of confidence, but allow quicker transactions in accordance with the speed the blockchain would allow for for tiny transactions. Temporarily I believe they need either proposal 1164 or 1169 until something like that is done however.

12 Likes

@eveyone make some noise on Twitter make your voices heardā€¦

3 Likes

I disagreeā€¦times are tough for luna sure but the price is dirt cheapā€¦the amount of luna burnt even with half the volume would be insaneā€¦what do u think is going to happen when people realisse the tokens are getting burnt? Be worried about the %fee or ape in because they know the upside is huge?

2 Likes

Very interesting a stable coin at 0.01 is intriguing i like the idea not sure how practice it would be but warrants some looking into

1 Like

Thatā€™s why its not the proposal. I added it to interesting comments since I want this our to be well though out. All ideas should be considered. Their pros and cons. To avoid situation like we have right now. It wasnā€™t thought about and what happend? We got a over 6T supply now ;/

1 Like

The idea is to add BURN and REMEDY fee, but all ideas are welcome so developers and the team will find everything they need in one place to proceed as smoothly as possible.

3 Likes

Makes sense dude i just hope they atleast look at this and take actionā€¦time is running outā€¦time is of the essence

Is there a sure way that this proposal gets to the team?

2 Likes

Yeah with the supply and price right now its not an option right this second but when Luna is a higher price for sure. How stable to you think 0.01 would be? Might be easier to maintain with the currant mechanics in especially if luna price is up at $9/10. Hmmm

1 Like

This is how it looks like. Validators are scared to make decisions.

They have almost 10% power XD

1 Like

You could even implement temporary 1% of the volume going to the people that lost money during the crash . Wouldnā€™t that be wonderful?

I sold my ust at a big loss before binance unlisted it, i holded it all the way down because of do kwonā€™s tweet and terra discord telling us to hold but the delisting was too much. Hope we get help too minus the few $ we saved of course.

2 Likes

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

1 Like

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

Not possible.

1 Like

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

2 Likes

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

1 Like