To update my previous comment: I should have said the parameter’s in this proposal have nothing to do with burning. The proposal does state that “35% to be burned on a monthly basis via a Community Pool proposal”, however, this would be something the community would need to vote on monthly (and so really has nothing to do with what this proposal would actually accomplish - minus proposing to the community that a monthly proposal could accomplish some amount of burning).
Also, saw and responding to @bkoenig comment concerning 3568:
3568 is being worked on by a group of community developers that include about 15 members, at least two of which have fintech background (more exacting testing requirements), and at least three have blockchain development, and at least one is a PhD Computer Scientist [who is the one who has done the coding for 3568 - now the validators just need to show support for a plan to return to protocol to allow for staking to be enabled so that governance proposals can be considered and voted on by all LUNA “classic” owners that stake, which would allow one potential pathway to the validators being able to receive the code in a trustworthy manner]. Just wanted to point that out for those who are not aware of this.
Hey guys. The good man who launched this proposal was smarter than most of us commenting on it. He knows that to successfully implement a parameter proposal - the parameters have to already exist. He has successfully worked with what is already there and can be amended by parameter change. That is why the proposal will go through automatically unlike 3568 where nobody knows what will or will not happen. That is also why the burning part is not automated. The parameters exist to drop fees into the community pool but there are no pre-existing burning functions where parameters could be changed. We will just have to assume the community actually wants to burn… not much doubt in my mind they will. Thank you again for this awesome proposal it is the smartest thing I have read on this forum altogether.
@aeuser999 we know the parameters have nothing to do with burning, and were not saying it does. We have been trying our hardest to implement an “auto burn”, we have a problem with his non parameter “text proposal” side that has to do with his version of the burn. If he includes the word “burn” then a burn will be talked about and the implimentation will be argued over. Nobody likes the idea of a manual voted burn, make it automatic if possible.
@Pascal i understand, but if he actually responded to us himself then literally all of our problems and questions would be answered. Not everyone knows about what you said, which to me sounds like pretty crucial information. There is no communication from the proposer and i dont like that in a leader. Personal opinion.
@Kamal the total supply hasnt increased since terra disabled the minting function
Excuse me , i am just a simple lunc holder not that expert .
So i need to know the fees on-chain transaction and an approximate calculation for the upcoming burn , trying to imagine how much is this proposal useful on long run
That is not possible to quote as it is based off on chain volumes. We don’t know what that will look like until we see a few days of taxed transactions. We should be able to see the number of tokens (via wallet) that are sent to the pool I believe. There will probobly be some on twotter updating daily on this.
Why is there no code for the 35% burn in the code of the proposal 4080? What is the guarantee that the 35% burn will happen, if it is not in the code of the proposal 4080?
This code is completely different from what he described. This is a scam. The whole project is a scam. I advise everyone to leave as soon as possible, and don’t waste money and energy with scammers on this!
I get it mate - however his proposal is precise and to the point. Everybody can do their research and find the needed facts. I am just thankful he put up this proposal I don’t make him responsible for babysitting the clan. The questions that are put to him are really saying these people should do a bit more reading and improve their understaning of the environment we operate in and the questions will be cleared up automatically. I know I had to do my research before I got it - sort of. He might even respond if the questions lived up to a standard
im being transparent on my concerns and not gonna be passive agressive about it. Not many people know how to find specific things on the internet which is why questions get asked. Its ok to ask questions but when the proposer disappears and doesnt talk with the community, that raises concern. Theres no babysitting going on. Everyone here has good questions, but when you said he might respond if the questions lived up to a standard, that is incorrect. He disappeared like 2 days ago and hasnt talked to anybody, never even thanked your post that you congratulated him on the passed proposal. Youre setting a bar for people and thats unnecessary. We would just like our questions to be answered without having passive aggressive posts show up.
We simply need to stop circulating any newly minted coins and continue with the burn. Burning is useless if new coins keep being recirculated after every burn
im being transparent on my concerns and not gonna be passive agressive about it. Not many people know how to find specific things on the internet which is why questions get asked. Its ok to ask questions but when the proposer disappears and doesnt talk with the community, that raises concern. Theres no babysitting going on. Everyone here has good questions, but when you said he might respond if the questions lived up to a standard, that is incorrect. He disappeared like 2 days ago and hasnt talked to anybody, never even thanked your post that you congratulated him on the passed proposal. Youre setting a bar for people and thats unnecessary. We would just like our questions to be answered without having passive aggressive posts show up.