@dfunk Could you please join Luna Classic and once in ping me a msg.
We need to coordinate the efforts of the two proposals 3568 and 4080 to achieve the maximum possible benefit for the community.
4 Likes
@dfunk Great proposal, You have my vote. but is this allocation works for you?
45% transaction fees to go to validators and delegators in the following ratio:
- 15% to validators/proposers of the block
- 30% to the existing delegators
The remaining 55% transaction fees to go to the community pool to be utilised as follows:
- 35% to be burned on a monthly basis via a Community Pool proposal
- 10% earmarked for Terra Classic ecosystem developers - airdropped on a monthly basis according to their TVL
- 10% to be retained in the Community Pool for core Terra Classic development
5 Likes
The proposal sounds good, and I want to support it, but I dont understand what is going on. I remember last time I voted, the ballot question was do you want to limit a fuel tax to 7.5% (yes or no). So yes, you obviously want to limit taxes imposed by the government, but in reality there was no fuel tax, that existed, and voting to limit the tax was actually voting to be taxed. So I want things fair, and I support fairness, but because of my lack of knowledge in this area, I will not vote, and leave it to those whom are more knowledgeable than I am.
4 Likes
voted. Thank you.
3 Likes
@dfunk Do this proposal have the burning mechanism of the proposal 3568? Or the 1.2 tax is split. Thank you.
3 Likes
Let’s do it!!!
4 Likes
Currently the total supply is 5000 billion LUNC.
If 35% will be burned monthly through the Community Team proposal, the remaining 65% will not be burned and this 65% is a huge amount of money that has not been burned (you will manipulate). And will never reduce the total supply of LUNC. You and other validators should not make these recommendations. It needs to be burned immediately in every transaction for growth and fairness and transparency.
8 Likes
This doesn’t fix the problem you will never repegged the dollar like this, this just makes stakeholders gain money and as we can see in this community lots of people don’t understand how steak works or even how to steak
2 Likes
what is needed to verify this? we should get the community to help on this effort so we can enable staking asap
3 Likes
3 Likes
The proposal may have value, but some clarification would be good.
What would be the final amount of the onchain transaction fee, for the user?
And what about the already approved 1.2% fee proposal?
thanks
1 Like
This proposal is not introducing any new fees. So the onchain fee will be unchanged. This proposal is only changing redistribution of the current (existing) fees.
6 Likes
terra ya güveniyorum, do ne yaptığını biliyor, ona güveniyorum…
2000 dolara yakın zararım var, yinede #lunc ve @terra_moneye
desteğim tamdır…
#lunc 
1 Like
35% needs to be burned immediately in every transaction for growth and fairness and transparency. Not need turned monthly through the Community Team proposal，Otherwise the team will lose trust and efficiency。
5 Likes
Sorry, but the wording on the proposal vote doesn’t align with what you are saying:
“A Tax Burn mechanism is to be implemented on LUNC to reduce the Total Supply. Implement a Tax + Burn mechanism on each buy-sell transaction”
That to me clearly means the 1.2% tax will/should be implemented on-chain, so the question about compatibility with this proposal is 100% relevant IMHO.
1 Like
I support this. I’ll tag on Twitter the major validators, please DO THE SAME! Contact them and vote!! They have the power. I voted YES!
3 Likes
Hi DFUNK
HappyCattyCrypto here, I would like to help you push this out as I did with PROP3468 for VEGAS.
Consider Chucking me a line. Would love to do a episode to get you’re message out there!
4 Likes
#lunc küllerinden yeniden doğacak buna inanıyorum, ticaret hacminde #btc ye rakip olacak…
tüm kalbimle @terra yi destekliyorum…
#lunc aşktır
2 Likes
Hi Dfunk
Ok… @HappyCattyCrypto to.
I think where retail confusion arises is with terminology. I think i understand your reasoning for this, however retail needs some added explanation. Remember you are dealing with a vast amount of people that are experts in their own fields and lives, but not necessarily crypto. But to make this work everyone needs to be given the chance to understand. As a LUNC army, we all need to understand the plan and the parts we play to support people helping coordinate action.
A) Explanations would help such as the meanings of:
-
Community Tax’
‘Base Proposer’
‘Bonus Proposer’
and rewards
B) Also where does the following reward come from, i.e. which pot?
- increased from 0.01 and 0.04 —> 0.03 and 0.12 respectively, to increase the validator share of rewards
C) Where you are discussing rewards of 1,601,487% to 4,340,031% to a retail person, particularly one thsts lost their life savings this sounds terrible. Im sure there’s a logical reason behind this, so to ensure the retail community doesn’t resent this please elaborate on the current sutuation and how this will effect it.
Quote,:-
Challenges with the current distribution
Delgators/Stakers : The current return on staking for existing delegators is 4,340,031% per year. This proposal will see this reduce by a factor of ~2.71. However, despite this, the return on their staked LUNC for existing delegators will be 1,601,487% per year.
If you need anything proof reading or sense checking please use me… i’d be more than happy to help.
I’m on Twitter too @RexYellerBelly.
1 Like
Would love some clarification.
I understand the how’s and why’s of your tax, otherwise I would not have proposed a similar tax myself already. I know another certain person has been asking, but I will do so in a more constructive manner.
-
How will you deal with Dapps? I mean with the tax, as this may hurt them and may drive them away.
-
What are your plans on talking to ALL the CEX’s to ensure that we are continuing to be listed, but also negotiate a separate exchange tax (even it it’s 0.05%, ideally better of course).
-
How are you going to tackle the “BIG” Whales who hold a big chunk of our supply? By burning total supply we are inadvertently increasing thier ownsership stake if they continue to hold all their coins? This could lead us closer to a governance attack.
-
Regarding Governance, do you have any plans on changing the voting structure to make this a more fair system?
-
What is you stance on opening up Staking again? And if you do what changes will there be if any?
-
Circulating Supply is increasing, and we are burning total tokens. What will happen when the circulating supply catches up to total supply. That will affect the validators correct?
-
What are your plans for USTC? So far there has been no mention of it. Do you plan on saving it as well
-
And if you do, how do you plan on backing it up to repeg it?
-
And again if you do, will you re-enable the algo relationship between LUNC & USTC, and or create an different mechinism to replace it?
-
From my understanding, you want to create a DAO basically, which means a leaderless token so to speak. How will you deal with all the nuances that the current leaderless leader (pre attack) had to deal with?
-
As a DAO, how do you plan on financing and investment into the ecosystem to help build it up to compete with the other tokens that operate with a leadership and dev team that build bigger and better systems then what we will have. They will attract new Dapps and we could slowly fall further and further back if we don’t invest to stay relevant?
DO NOT get me wrong, I obviously support this proposal as, well its like the tax part of mine. It’s smart and well thought out. I disagree with those (you know who you are) that say a tax will hurt the system, BUT there needs to be certain features that counter the negative effects of a tax, which is missing here.
2 Likes