[Proposal] Exclude IBC Assets from Taxation

Thank you for the knowledge share :+1:

With my current understanding, I can not see this proposal disadvantaging our chain or effort; if anything else works in our favor. So it’s YES from me.

Thank you again for raising it and taking the time to discuss the ins and outs.
:metal:

2 Likes

You brought this proposal for on chain volume. Can you now give the details what is the difference in the volume before and after 1.2 %. Or you only brought this proposal for your self satisfaction.

I am not against burning LUNC. I am against burning OSMO or ATOM. Because it’s not burning a single LUNC coin… And not helping to burn LUNC

1 Like

Sir with due respect please answer my one doubt why the benefit to brought proposal -5234. It was brought for the on chain volume. It has been two month no more on chain volume has come. Everyone is playing only with tax. Nobody thinking about utility. So please don’t harm burn tax. Please focus on utility rather than touching burn tax.

This proposal is not related to 5234 and/or has anything to do with altering the tax burn values.

Please keep the discussion in the context of this proposal’s scope of work. If you need answers from the author for another proposal please address them in their post.
:+1:

2 Likes

If it allows the development of the network and greater usability, more builders, then why are people against? Utility will burn large amounts of coins, not just a huge tax. No one wants to pay high taxes because it is not profitable.

Other question.

If the IBC channel is already on, will we receive prizes like ATOM, OSMO during staking? Thank you.

No. Staking rewards will only be paid out in LUNC, USTC and other whitelisted stables.

You are dreaming of proposals that unite the community. That is not gonna happen. Proposals are about politics. Politics is about disagreement and compromise… I have a specific reason why I bring u this proposal. I want to move something that fits in with my current capabilities and time constraints - even if it is just a little thing.

We would vote yes for this proposal, it doesnt make since to deter other assets from coming on chain. why would anyone want bring those assets to classic just to get taxed and no utility for them.

once those assets are brought on classic chain , when they trade against lunc the lunc would still be taxed correct?

1 Like

Yes, of course.

1 Like

Yes,very good proposal !

With the changes coming to the way we do the burn taxes through the new ante handler, how will that affect the ibc. I feel you need to be more clear about the “tax” as I believe you are talking purely about the burn tax not not just the blanket term. I am not for whitelisting wallets overall. Won’t the new ante handler completely change how things are done regarding the ibc’s?

Will this whitelisting affect normal tax or gas fees?

That is a really good question. I find myself in a position where I start to confuse things. Let us be clear here: The burn tax (= ante handler) is basically a repurpose of the stability tax that was in place before the chain crashed. This “stability tax” is basically applied to all transactions and all denoms. We now want to exclude IBC denoms from that tax. Then there is the other tax called community tax, which is derived from gas fees. This proposal does not touch this kind of tax…

Can you explain what is happening in the tx for the ibc a little more. Is it that we swap via ibc and the burn tax is attempting to burn the other coin and not burn the lunc side of the tx?

The lunc side should always be burn taxed imo otherwise we are creating loopholes. The other chain coin should not be burn taxed

So is the real issue that we don’t have the ibc burn tax coded in a way that makes sense and makes it equal to other on chain tx? And if so then shouldn’t we be fixing the problem rather than “whitelisting”?

  • 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
    

I just have one question at any point during swiping LUNC would be involved either there would be conversation to LUNC or vice versa couldn’t be tax everything in LUNC

Did our conversation on Discord help out on that question?

Yes it answered my questions. Thank you again for taking the time to explain that.

1 Like

No. Because there is no onchain data for the exchange rate of LUNC against these assets. There is simply no way to deduct how much LUNC to burn for those…[quote=“Asad_Shahjehan, post:38, topic:49021, full:true”]
I just have one question at any point during swiping LUNC would be involved either there would be conversation to LUNC or vice versa couldn’t be tax everything in LUNC
[/quote]

No it’s not possible. Because there is no onchain exchange rate data. The Blockchain simply wouldn’t know how much LUNC to burn for a certain amount of yIBC assets.

All for this proposal. Its the obvious way to go. We cannot tax non-LUNC assets as we dont want to burn it

3 Likes