The only thing he did was paste some screenshots that both @dfunk and myself were involved in the same projects. I was also involved in the same projects with @Vegas, @ek826, @Deathstar_Daddy and others. Does that mean we are all the same person? Your logic is flawed at best.
Past record shows otherwise. Not that you would know or care to find and share with the rest. Half-truths and misinformation is what you share.
I have done so in the proposals post and uploaded evidence - something that wasnât provided to the case. If you had done (as above) your own research you would know about that. Maybe you should circle back and read the 0.2% tax proposalâs posts from start again!
Iâm not in TR (if that is what you are talking about). At the same time, I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt and wait for results rather than start discrediting them because someone decided to do so on Twitter and shout at the top of their voice. I judge people based on results not what twitter-persona tells me to think.
I oppose this proposal. In future dApps should and will play a big role in burning lunc & ustc, which is so critical for the acceleration of lunc revitalization. 0.2% burn tax is nothing.
Thank you for that; The url is here for those interested.
@dfunk, @StrathCole Do we know for sure those Binance wallets are purely for Binance internal operations? I donât see many MsgExecuteContract to indicate contract transfers. They are pretty much all MsgSend and was wondering what is the percentage that takes out of our daily total (on average).
This is indirectly relevant to this proposal. i.e if those MsgSend makes 50% of our daily transaction base then we have (or more accurately we will have) a problem when they get whitelisted and will make MsgExecuteContract volume appear at that point quite significant (>3%)!
I hope that train of thought makes sense.
(Need to find a way to quantify that, it feels like itâs critical info)
Hi @lunc_nymph, the proposal (if goes forwards) is aiming to remove the tax being applied in the mechanics of the dApp operation, the handled amount is still taxed.
Are you curious why he is requesting a tax exemption?
Almost investor does not access the DEV Forum. They understand that the transfer tax fee for LUNC is naturally charged to everyone.
They donât know the problem even if they impose separate taxes on users after they are exempt from taxes with smart contracts.
Their additional fees which have been converted into taxes will be sent to the developerâs wallet, not to burn. Very easy steal.
I extracted the latest transaction made by those Binance-provided wallets and only two contain a record that took place in 2023; one of them being their hot wallet which appears to be the only one âup to dateâ.
Not sure about that @Kevin_Park, we did disable the seigniorage option (Prop 11242) so thereâs no more re-minting taking place for third-party burn initiatives (like Binance and individuals).
What they are asking for now is to be excluded from on-chain transactions as well.
Also, those wallets look surprisingly like end-user (though I saw a validator as well) wallets:
What do you mean by mechanism? A lot of smart contracts use MsgExecuteContract transactions. The volume is low now is because we donât have many live Smart contacts but it doesnât mean we will not have many more in future. A foreward-looking approach is better than just analyzing history data only. My personal opinion only.
The mechanics as in, âwe allow the engine of the dApp (the smart contract) to operate without blocks (tax) in place in order to reap the higher rewards of what the contract doesâ, meaning the MsgSend.
The scenario I have in mind, and please correct me if Iâm wrong, is that of a DEX. The buy/sell/swap action is called all the time (high-speed bot trading) and itâs based on contract execution, but the actual taxable value out of this is the amount bought/sold/swapped at the end. At least that is what the evidence (in this proposal) points toâŠ
Still need to do some checks on those Binance wallets and cross-ref with the usual daily traffic (a day before 2022-09-08 will do). That might yield some info that makes this prop not worth going forward with because of that future Binance exception work
As always, we need data and evidence to make the most informed decisionâŠ
Burn tax is an economic policy that needs to be adjusted basis demand/supply. Considering LUNC supply maybe higher than its demand at the moment, I would be in support of raising the burn tax.
Having said that, I personally feel that the target rate of the burn tax should be 0.35%. This is basis the Tobin Tax, which the burn tax has been re-modelled after. However, this is just my personal view, and since this is not what I am proposing with this proposal, I would appreciate if we do not digress too much into this at the moment.
The bigger issue is that a dapp user shouldnât be expected to pay both burn tax and gas fees as it becomes economically unviable for the user. Given that dapp contract executions only account for ~3% of the burn tax, it makes no sense in having them for those type of transactions - which is what this proposal aims to solve.
Even if this is the case (which hasnât been substantiated), the burn from MsgExecuteContract would still be ~6%. Compare that to an increase of burn tax to 0.3% (50% increase), or 0.35% (75% increase) and you can clearly see the benefits of removing the burn tax on MsgExecuteContract transactions outweighing the cons.
@dfunk Development will have to be set in only one direction.If smart contracts are tax-exempt now because >3% now, all future dApps will be designed based on tax-free.This means that taxes cannot be applied again when the usages of smart contracts increases.
Specific examples of what difficulties this proposal should be passed should be given. Youâre the only one who knows what kind of project youâre working on. Other developers are possible, but if youâre impossible, thatâs your problem. There is a reason why others refuse.
@godoal perseek already explained why Binanceâs Wallet Usage and Whitelist were used. You should refer to the data of better analysts than you. He is committed to the community for free. And just because youâre not on the TR team doesnât mean youâre not related to them. Your incitement is obviously related to Vegasâs recent mention of a 1.2% tax rate after being inactive for more than a month. And refrain from using spam & abuse accounts. No one opposes a good proposal. Thereâs a reason why thereâs a controversy.
That is correct - but usage of smart contract will not increase if a user has to pay both burn tax as well as gas fees. With my current solution, the overall burn amount could increase by 50-75% (by raising burn tax), while sacrificing 3-6% of the burn tax - the net result would be more burns.
Also, not all dapp transactions would be excluded from the burn tax - MsgSend transactions would still continue to pay tax - so an overall increase in dapp transactions would still ultimately result in more burns via wallet transfers.
Binance has supported both Proposals 11242 and 11243 which were authored by me with inputs from @godoal .
Your feedback and constructive criticism is welcome but would request you to look at previous proposals and their benefits to the community before making baseless allegations.
Your argument is a contradiction. The reason why they update the core of LUNC is because LUNC is listed in binance. Itâs a completely different matter for them to support core update and support prop. Distinguish between technical and ideological support. And this update has nothing to do with this proposal. Binanceâs announcement of the suspension of burn was made after the proposal was passed. They decide by looking at the results after the proposal is passed. If you want to instigate, please use a proper fact.
Point taken. I have nothing further to add to your comments other than the case that has been presented. Thank you for your inputs and the constructive criticism. Have a nice day
Thanks for the info, itâs definitely interesting material and fills some gaps. The point am investigating is slightly different though and is closely related to the long-term viability of this proposal.
I am related mostly to everyone you see, talk to, and (some) admire from the old guard, not just @Vegas. I still want the tax to be brought back up to its previous levels until a better burn solution is in placeâŠstill waiting for that swaps activation.
You keep repeating the same story; Iâll say it once again, I have only one account and itâs the one am writing to you now, and its been since I joined the revival of the chain effortâŠI have no interest, or the time, in playing around with unnecessary chatter. Iâm after effective solutions to take away our problems. And yes I have skin in the game since I am a delegator myself so anything bad happening to the chain will affect me as well.
This relies on having the same volume with a higher tax. But we will most likely see another drop in volume as soon as tax is raised, even if it is âonlyâ doubled.
Especially High-Volume users are quite tax sensitive.
A heated discussion is a good phenomenon, but it is better to refrain from slanderous comments. Decentralization begins with respect for diversity.
I couldnât read all comments. But I understand that it is largely divided into two opinions.
Exclude tax from smart contracts could provide a better environment for developers. However, the issue of fairness arises. A non-developer might think it a privilege. You donât have to blame them for not understanding the development. 95% of investors are non-developers. Their opinions should also be respected.
This proposal has faced many objections because there are no results or examples of targets. Itâs not specific and has a big impact on the future direction of chain. If the structure of a particular development project necessarily excludes Tax from the smart contracts, we might consider applying a limited fixed-term white list. Wouldnât it be possible to suggest a reasonable reason why dApp should be included in the white list and persuade why this dApp to provide public benefits (liquidity) to the chain?
If this proposal is one of the steps towards achieving the agenda for a particular team (ex : back to 1.2% tax burn), you can ignore my comment.
Why is it that whenever someone talks about a possible raise of the burn tax they are immediately affiliated with Terra Rebels? Do you know that more people than the Terra Rebels support a higher burn tax? You know the 1.2% passed with near unanimous support originally? Many community members including myself were very disappointed when it was dropped to make way for minting. Look at everyone who supported that garbage. I was shocked. The promised high volumes never appeared, it was false. We should have higher burn tax, and if dapps can be exempted as a means of achieving this then I absolutely support it. There is nothing wrong with that. Iâm not saying that is the proposers intention, but I personally support this proposal for that reason, as a means to increase the burn tax. I am completely open about it. âOh but what about the dappsâ has been the primary reason for keeping the burn tax low and that reason should be no more.
