Would using the mechanism from this proposal mean leaving the antehandler and hardcoded 50% cp split alone?
Dont feel intimadated by others, Vegas. For some is nice u still be around!!!
2 Likes
- repeg steps
- 1 - mint a coin called BUST with same capabilities as USTC and LUNC
- 2 - create a pool of USTC and BUST
- 3 - change arbitrage code to use BUST instead of LUNC the mint and burn amount of
USTC / BUST are the originals when USTC was peg
- 4 - set a tax of 0.2 % in arbitrage code for every arbitrage transaction
- 4.1 - arbitrage tax can be paid in LUNC USTC and BUST
- 4.2 - 100 % of arbitrage tax is burn
- 4.3 - 50 % of last arbitrage tax is mint into pool of USTC and BUST
- 4.4 - 50 % of last arbitrage tax distribution, if in the pool the distribution is 50 / 50 %
of USTC / BUST then 50 / 50 % of last arbitrage tax distribution is mint
as 50 / 50 % USTC / BUST into the pool. Else if in the pool distribution is 51 / 49 % of
USTC / BUST then 49 / 51 % of last arbitrage tax distribution is mint as 49 / 51 %
USTC / BUST into the pool. Else if in the pool distribution is 49 / 51 % of USTC / BUST
then 51 / 49 % of last arbitrage tax distribution is mint as 51 / 49 % USTC / BUST into
the pool. Else always mint the oposite distribution % of the asset distribution % in the pool,
to try to keep a balance
- 5 - change arbitrage code to attempt repeg to values of 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05, 0.10,
0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, 0.55, 0.60, 0.65, 0.70, 0.75, 0.80, 0.85,
0.90, 0.95, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
- 6 - change arbitrage code to attempt repeg only if USTC / BUST pool have a value % of the
USTC + BUST market cap of 0.1 %, 0.2 %, 0.3 %, 0.4 %, 0.5 %, 1 %, 1.5 %, 2.0 %, 2.5 %,
3.0 %, 3.5 %, 4.0 %, 4.5 %, 5.5 %, 6.0 %, 6.5 %, 7.0 %, 7.5 %, 8.0 %, 8.5 %, 9.0 %, 9.5 %,
10.0 %, 10.5 %, 11.0 %, 11.5 %, 12.0 %
- 7 - change arbitrage code to use 1 of 2 times USTC / BUST pool instead of mint USTC / BUST
whenever the USTC / BUST pool is up the USTC + BUST market cap % require and also +/- 0.005
close to reach the repeg value. For example when repeg to 0.05 will riquire a pool of more than
0.5 % of the USTC + BUST market cap value and will use the pool assets when USTC value
is between 0.045 and 0.055, 1 of 2 times, one use the pool and the other use the original arbitrage
protocol.
- 8 - arbitrage code will move to next repeg value whenever USTC / BUST pool size requirement is met
In the case when the USTC / BUST pool size goes lower the current stage repeg requiriment, the protocol
wont return to repeg using last stage value until USTC / BUST pool size gets below last repeg value
requiriment. For example if repeg to value of 1 with pool size of 10.5 % USTC + BUST market cap,
will attempt to repeg to 0.95 value only if pool size of drops below 10.0 % of USTC + BUST market cap
and not if goes below the 10.5 % of current repeg value requiriment.
- 9 - arbitrage code will use the USTC / BUST in specials cases
- 9.1 - arbitrage code will use the USTC / BUST special case pool when size of 10.5 % and value of 1 +/- 0.006
This means when repeg to 1 will riquire a pool of more than 10.5 % of the USTC + BUST market cap
value and will use the pool assets when USTC value is between 1.006 and 0.994, 1 of 2 times,
one use the pool and the other use the original arbitrage protocol.
- 9.2 - arbitrage code will use the USTC / BUST special case pool when size of 11.0 % and value of 1 +/- 0.007
This means when repeg to 1 will riquire a pool of more than 11.0 % of the USTC + BUST market cap
value and will use the pool assets when USTC value is between 1.007 and 0.993, 1 of 2 times,
one use the pool and the other use the original arbitrage protocol.
- 9.3 - arbitrage code will use the USTC / BUST special case pool when size of 11.5 % and value of 1 +/- 0.008
This means when repeg to 1 will riquire a pool of more than 11.5 % of the USTC + BUST market cap
value and will use the pool assets when USTC value is between 1.008 and 0.992, 1 of 2 times,
one use the pool and the other use the original arbitrage protocol.
- 9.4 - arbitrage code will use the USTC / BUST special case pool when size of 12.0 % and value of 1 +/- 0.009
This means when repeg to 1 will riquire a pool of more than 12.0 % of the USTC + BUST market cap
value and will use the pool assets when USTC value is between 1.009 and 0.991, 1 of 2 times,
one use the pool and the other use the original arbitrage protocol.
- 10.0 - arbitrage code will remain the same for other cases
why we are just staying arround one proposal,
increase tax, decrease tax
is that all what we can propose??
i dont agree with that proposal, and the comparison with luna2 is too far incorrect, since most if the volume come from cex
If this passes, i would think it means we do not touch the burn tax (there would be no need to if seigniorage is 0).
4 Likes
@ek826 Hi Ed now we have this new proposal up for voting (mint to 0, 5x gas fees), this satisfies part of Binanceās request to stop minting. The other part of Binanceās request is their wallets whitelisted. Could we get this done asap to complete Binanceās request or what would be the eta on that? Thank you very much for your hard work for LUNC.
Very nice idea, i was for a x2 x3 but comparing us to others blockchain x5 isnt even an overkill. Would it be possible to make a cap on the CP at like 5 billion and once that theeshold hit, it direct the overflow to the burn wallet so once the 5 billion hit, it focus toward an extra push for burning ?
Also increasing to x 5 actualy make it so the 0.2% tax itself will burn much more ?
Thx
I agree with the cap on the community pool as has been proposed earlier by valuable contributors. If we go over the cap direct it to the burn wallet. This should be a governance parameterised proposal which the cap amount can be changed in the future without difficulty to account for LUNC price rising. A cap of 5 billion LUNC is currently worth $793,500 USD (at LUNC $0.0001587) which is a reasonable cap, especially as price increases. A 10 billion LUNC cap would be $1.587M at current LUNC price. This would be a great proposal which deals with excess funding by redirecting to burns.
Hi,ED.you already had a TGF as a substance to interact with that funding plan.Why we still want devs be fund by ourselves?why not leading a big campaign including these small devs groupās projects and ask a big budget from binance revival plan at one time?
And Binance already give us a direction,TGF lead these projects development.
Nice one. Only thought is how can we make such changes automatic 
Iāve tried asking Binance for funding 3x in written form through formal applications, and informally more than 5 times in voice/video/chatā¦ I will continue to ask until they get tired of saying no and stop talking to me.
17 Likes
@ek826 Excellent work Ed your efforts are greatly appreciated! Keep it up! Remember Binance only agreed to do the burns due to pressure and continual asking. I think this is a relevant passage, Luke 18:1-5 NKJV (you can google it).
1 Like
I think on the L1 side, its important that we menage to fund ourself our dev, this will show a healthy side recovery. Binance can and will likely help to fund protocol/apps, we will see how they help out on that side later on. As the lunc price will increase, the 5 billion fund will be worth much more. We have to beliave in our evolution overtime and recovery. As for the gaz fee, if you got a way to make it so it can be easily changed as overtime a X5 will hurt as the price increase and we could even start with a x 10 with this low lunc price. Pershap Ed you can find a kind of chart where the blockchain fee increase or reduce from x10-x1.5 as the lunc price raise or fall. The sweet spot versus lunc price point.If thats possible to even be automated.
@ek826 has just mentioned that it is possible to parameterize the burn split on the burn tax and also provide a ānew burn walletā. Imo, this effectively cuts out minting.
Qus.
- Will the increase gas fee be able to fund the dev teams? If yes, will the burn tax be split according to proposal 11111?
- Please explain how @ek826 new statements would relate to the seignorage proposal?
@ek826 mentioned a ānew burn walletā. Hence there would be
Donāt get angry Ed. We respect you. You are a great visionary leader of lunc. It will very hurtful if binance say no to you. If you donāt want to answer just ignore it otherwise if you interact with with every question you just fed up. You have done very great things for lunc in the past. In lunc community here many are small investor who see you very hopefully and their dream are in your hand. You are everything for lunc.
Thank you for your efforts.Iām sorry to ask you such questions.But it still works,because we have the clear direction of next steps.
Thank you again with my full respect.
Maybe the influencers can initiate a #fundthedevs initiative ( or similar) like the #burnalot with which we can lets say donate 10-15-20k coins to the L1 team, hopefully a lot of people would like to participate and this way they will have some extra funding to cover for volatility and unexpected expenses. (TRās donation wallets got to about $30k in value, if the L1 team had this kind of funding im confident they would make a much better use of that money, they would not need to cut 1 end to tie another), If they had that extra funding they could just onboard the new dev on a full time position right away without having to cut on other budgets.
Hopefully with time the gas fees and price appreciation will take care of that issue but for now we cant just rely only on outside sources to take care of our financial problems (as a community). Keep in mind that what Binance does for us they dont do for any other community.
Also if any of the 0% validators read this, you can maybe propose and poll your communities to increase the commission to 1-2-3% and donate it to the CP or the L1 team instead, IMO this would be much more help in the long run than getting a few extra free coin rewards. ( Take for example luncdao who is donating to TGF)
The devās are the people who are keeping the chain alive and we are going nowhere without them, we are very lucky to have such high end people stand on our side.
Thatās only my opinion of course.
1 Like
This needs to be clarified.
In effect, ,are you saying that all funds from the burn tax will be burnt? (There will be no split).If yes , will the increase in gas fee be able to fund the CP for dev payments?
2 Likes
Good ask 
We must not be myopic on the cost to fund devs. From what @Zaradar has been saying the next set of payments maybe be much higher. Will we have the funds to pay them ? If not, does it then mean , that we may have to go back to changing the seignorage reward policy again to augment the CP?