i think need to deleted sell button because many people just trading 5%. when we get proposal code 1.2% burn can trade whatever they want do everything
The wallets you have listed there are more than likely CEX wallets, which means the coins in there belong to A LOT of people trading on those CEXs. Some of those people might as well be multi-coin holders, as it happens with people trading in CEXs on any cryptocurrency.
You might have not read the Agora proposal threads for 3568/4095 if youâre asking âwhose tokens weâll burnâ. I will try to explain the burn situation, but please do take the time and read the original proposals:
- ANY tax related burn code on the chain (or any other chain) can be enforced ONLY on transactions taking place on-chain (with some on-chain transactions excepted as mentioned in this proposal)
- The community CANNOT enforce a tax on off-chain individual transactions taking place on CEXs. We rely on those CEXs to abide by the communityâs wishes and implement a mechanism that implements the tax burn on their off-chain trading databases. Some CEXs did implement the proposal already, others have a version of it and some are waiting for the community to implement it on-chain first in order to commit to it.
As to who will make the most money in the end, I suppose the answer is only those that persist in reviving the classic ecosystem, succeed in doing so, and are willing to wait for their investment to mature.
8 Likes
Brother, people just do not understand what they write, this man is SARL_AMK51, he thinks that all tokens are held by exchanges, he has no logic, a meaningless writer. When a personâs brains donât work, this person writes anything, all these tokens are held by people and not exchanges, exchanges have very few tokens.
8 Likes
You have to be lenient with some people.
Some do come straight out of a string of Twitter FUD groups where they were fed only lies about what is going on and what we are trying to achieve. So naturally, they are pumped up talking about the things theyâve heard since they were shown only circumstantial evidence and half-truths.
We just need to provide them with knowledge and references to the original source of the information. Eventually, they will see past the fudâŚ
4 Likes
I agree with you. This person has no idea that when trading, coins will also be burned if they contain 1.2% burn. And there will be people who, without trading, will burn coins to raise the price, because this ecosystem is very large and strong, just crooked people destroyed this ecosystem. I hope the validators save her.
3 Likes
Fishing in open waters are we? Send 10M LUNC to the burn address firstâŚ
3 Likes
We are all in the same boat!
Off-chain = All user coins appear as one big lump of coins in a single wallet used for that coin (i.e. LUNC) by the CEX. That is why you use notes when sending coins to a CEX, so they know which âinternalâ database account they need to map the incoming coins otherwise your coins are lost. That also means no-one but the CEX knows your internal database address and the number of coins in there. Hence why I thought you were trolling meâŚ
Because a fork means we would lose all the dApps and utilities already built in the chain and the CEX exposure. It effectively means creating a brand new coin, just like DK did, but without his influence in getting it registered with all major exchanges with a snap of the fingers!
So, the value of LUNC Classic IS its existing ecosystem and that is what all those proposals in the past including this one are trying to revive and fix and improve so past mistakes donât happen again
3 Likes
If we were to (hard) fork yes.
We need to move forward with the existing chain and continue supporting/maintaining and improving the existing ecosystem.
1 Like
I suspect heâs a LUNC hardcore to the point of still calling it the one and only and true LUNA 
If you are a delegator who has voted no, I would like the chance to discuss your concerns, while still respecting your decision to vote in a way that you believe is best for the Terra v1 community, and the network. If I am able to answer any concerns, then I would like to ask that you consider changing your vote during the open voting period for proposal 4159. You are free to respond in this discussion, or direct message either myself or @ek826 on this system (goto profile circle in upper right and click > click mail icon > click down arrow at bottom of list > click new message). Thank you for your consideration.
To all who have staked Luna, and are able to vote - Thank you to all who have voted
If you did not happen to already have been staked before delegation and staking were turned off, this is why distributing 4095 is so important. However, you are still able, if you would like, to encourage others who do have staked Luna to vote.
I hope you have a great day today
3 Likes
The same above invitation applies to all validators, or others, who may have concerns as well.
Thank You so much to those validators who have voted
3 Likes
Hi @SARL_AMK51 ,
The code for 3568 applies a tax to transactions on-chain and then the tax is sent to burn after every block via a cosmos wallet module to module (corresponding to the burn wallet address) (please feel free to correct this @ek826 ).
Re: off-chain: Governance decisions only affect the Terra v1 ecosystem in regards to the blockchain as dealt with in the documentation. There is some coordination with exchanges that does take place in regards to core code distribution. For instance: âlarge exchanges typically run a full node (or validator) synced with the chain. That way when they need to query gas prices or make transactions, they use their internal node. When staking and delegation are turned on, they will need to be running v21 along with the validatorsâ (@ek826 can give more information on this if you would like).
There are various thoughts regarding the proposal 3568 regarding the burn, the cap on supply, and monetary policy (and I have my own personal concerns from a mid to long-term monetary policy perspective). However, that proposal has passed governance, and unless a different proposal passes regarding those topics, the code should be distributed. This proposal does not seek to measure the merits of that proposal, or of 4095, but only seeks to give governance, which includes validators, a path for distribution of code for proposal 3568 (for the 1.2% burn) and for 4095 (re-enable delegation and staking) - both of which passed governance votes. This proposal only deals with the distribution of the code, and the code itself, and a security proposal regarding code for 4095.
I hope that helps out, and that you have a great day
4 Likes
Hi @Domenico_Pietrovito ,
You would ask validators to not implement a passed governance vote in 3568? If that were the case, what hope would any governance system have if you do not implement what has been passed (unless the proposal is clearly illegal or is outside the scope of its jurisdiction)?
I would encourage anyone who does not like a previous proposal to propose a new one, relying on merits.
Again though, this proposal does not seek to measure the merits of proposal 3568, or of 4095, but only seeks to give governance, which includes validators, a path for distribution of code for proposal 3568 (for the 1.2% burn) and for 4095 (re-enable delegation and staking) - both of which passed governance votes. This proposal only deals with the distribution of the code, and the code itself, and a security proposal regarding code for 4095.
I hope you have a great day today
4 Likes
@Domenico_Pietrovito This is important first step. As you can see TFL´s are only working on v2 . I really think this would help. I know there is new version on github, but they absolute ignore proposals. I though it will harm chain, but if you look at populatity on this proposals⌠now i don´t think so. It will really help reduce supply a lot, just because of popularity. After that we can focus on other problems.
@SARL_AMK51 Hello, this is LUNA (v2) update.
This is why this proposal must PASS, because we have to MOVE forward. Hope EVERYBODY will go spam validator to vote and vote yes. For great future of LUNC.
After that we can add more code changes in cooperation with Terra Rebels and we AS COMMUNITY can make changes. This means decentralization as should be there. Not cry TFL´s does or doesn´t like proposals. This means absolute cut old historical leadership.
terra1rs5q6f2l8k97uye3ukw7tjq24a2npa7ddeh32s
Really don´t understand why voted NO. Maybe they want to wait until circulation supply will reach total supply for their own profit! Maybe all validators that voted NO thinks like that! Be careful!
Hi @Domenico_Pietrovito ,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply contained in your proposal discussion.
I agree, the removal of governance rights through shutting off staking and delegation (since these are part and parcel of voting rights of Terra v1 governance in the documentation) was, and is, not appropriate. However, I would rather use a governance system, as imperfect as it currently is, than to have anarchy. Even in its imperfection, it is the only appropriate tool, at least for community decision making, to appeal to in this situation. Each of us lives in a country with governance that is imperfect, and when those imperfections usurp rights (even God given historic natural law rights), we appeal for justice. The implementation of 4095, in this particular situation, would correct the imperfections that happened with the removal of staking and delegation, and restore governance to each LUNA v1 holder.
I hope you have a wonderful day today
7 Likes
@SARL_AMK51
TFL´s made update for NEW LUNA. Binance wrote about NEW LUNA not LUNC. LUNA is not LUNC. For us it means nothing. Hope it´s clear now.
On LUNC there are at this moment more than 8 700 000 blocks.
@SARL_AMK51 I will try to answer as good as i can.
- No LUNC it is not unspecified token. I don´t understand why you ask about it. Look to the whitelist how it works and how it is specified.
- Binance is CEX that means they store CEX users funds but it looks like they owns it all because it is most popular CEX.
- answer in 2)
- Depends on other proposals. If you think this would be better vote when this proposal PASS
Because, there is secure issue in peg mechanism that caused vurmerability in system that attackers used. Also bad reserve assets scheme helped a lot.
There are many trades and withdrawals of funds also after DAO hack. I don´t understand where you see this piece ofâŚ
Because people/investors belive in this project and they buy LUNC or USTC for 20 K USD and more. It´s normal.
You should better understand to cryptocurrency before you write comments like that.
So you are here to do investment analysis. I agree it´s impossible when you are only economist, but this also means this world is not for you. FIRST rule for investment in cryptocurrency is ALWAYS invest what you CAN loose. It will never change until complete CENTRALIZATION of all cryptocurrencies. I am economist, programmer, and business man. I am MBA, LL.M., DBA of business administration and i know nobody can predict something in this worlds for 100 % sure.
LUNC looks like good investment because there is some movement in more decentralization way. Community will have last word and there will not be pseudo decentralization like before. Not financial advice.
2 Likes
The 1.2% tax is the only way out. Itâs a move that can make a new start, and it is necessary for people who have lost tens of thousands to see that something is being done for lunc. or disappear slowly without doing anything
4 Likes