What? What’s the problem with 1.2% ? That‘s better, I don‘t get it why they want 0.35%
They (I Assume), are not changing 1.2% at all. This is distributing the funds across the system, not just burning. 0.35% I s what they are earmarking for the burn itself.
dfunk please respond to us, this is a community vote. We want auto burn on every transaction according to the code i posted above, not a manual monthly burn thats voted on. What if the burn vote doesnt reach quorum? Or votes no? What happens? I get it would remain in the community pool but then it would just sit there with no purpose, completely disregarding your proposal. If you dont integrate an auto burn code, somebody else will. And to anyone out there, if dfunk doesnt change the code to integrate auto burn, just take my code, verify the burn address yourself so you know, and create a new proposal. This is only if his code applies without auto burn. Also you should make sure this code is correct for a change in the algorithm because im not sure. It looks ok to me.
[{
“subspace”: “distribution”,
“key”: “communitytax”,
“value”: “0.150000000000000000”
},
{
“subspace”: “distribution”,
“key”: “terra1sk06e3dyexuq4shw77y3dsv480xv42mq73anxu”,
“value”: “0.350000000000000000”
}]
4 Likes
Congratulations on your successful proposal and thank you very much!
5 Likes
sounds good
1 Like
2 proposals to burn Luna has been passed. But what happens if scammer Do Kwon dont want to pass it?
after all, he is the leader of this LUNA coin. He might be a shameless scammer, but he is still the leader?
1 Like
We need show this to CZ (Binance) etc. Who covered proposal 2.0, need cover this proposal.
2 Likes
@dfunk I saw that although parameter changes get updated immediately, it takes approximately 1 week to take full effect due to operators, is this true? If anyone else knows about this, let me know.
Source: Vegasmorph patch 1 by vegasmorph · Pull Request #103 · terra-money/classic-mainnet · GitHub
2 Likes
can i know what’s transaction fees % ? because proposal says 50% of transaction fees to the community pool + increase validators rewards.
@dfunk I don’t understand how the LUNC coins will be burned?
If the 3568 proposal makes sense, it doesn’t here. Explain to people normally.
2 Likes
@dfunk wants to use proposals and voting to do the burns every single month, it has to vote yes to burn. My question before was what if it doesnt reach quorum or votes no on the monthly burn? We HAVE to have an auto burn. Why wasnt the auto burn in the proposal? Why manual? Whats the purpose of a manual burn when you can do auto and not waste time and lunc to vote to burn each month?
5 Likes
Manual method gives certain control, so make a think by yourself
1 Like
@Alberto but nobody needs control of the burn, that will be a lot of voting until we get to the supply we need. It needs to be automatic and if need be then pass another proposal that stops the burn when we reach a good supply. Plus dfunk isnt necessarily answering anyones questions anymore and thats raising more questions. A good amount of people want auto burn, literally nobody asked for a manual burn.
3 Likes
what are the predicted figures for burning on today volume ? as the 1.2% isnt happening as there is no one to go to the cex to ask them to do this
1 Like
I agree with you… No manual burn… It should be automatic… No control on it…
3 Likes
Я за!!!
This is definitely different than (and in addition to) the 1.2% tax in 3568 (which would be implemented through treasury, not distribution module). This has nothing to do with burning anything - it has to do with exactly what the title states. I do not know that this discussion really deals with what hardships that validators are facing that would justify this at this time. About the only thing I can think is helpful about this proposal is that some of it goes to the community pool.
Taxing is not an incentive (it actually works against long term health), nor will it contribute to the health of a project that is in the position this one current finds itself in.
For those that want to know exactly what these parameters mean, please see the following:
2 Likes
I am not a developer for this ecosystem so please take my comment with a grain of salt.
1 problem with this proposal is that it promises periodic burn proposals which have to be raised and approved. As far as I can see, there is no guarantee that this will happen. I hope that the only reason for going that route is to avoid code changes.
I would also prefer to have an automatic burn mechanism (i.e. 3568) but that feels out of reach.
Text proposals for classic seem to be useless as they seem to be ignored (no reaction on Twitter from Terra) and this blocks progress. Sure, there are 2 Github PRs related to 3568 but as far as I can see they are going nowhere.
1 Like