Imagine that 15-20 billion lunches are burned per day and when the volume increases, this number will be much higher. I will be very hopeful if this decision is implemented. I’d rather lose by trying than to wait without doing anything.
3 Likes
Why are you against the 1.2% tax?
tax is paid by the community for each transaction and they agree to pay it ok.
3 Likes
I see, you’re making an “approach type” argument rather than saying a blatant “no”.
You’ll be happy to learn that the 3568 code doesn’t also activate it on implementation; it needs a parameter proposal to activate it. This also means the “tax” value can be adjusted as/and when required.
1 Like
I support the proposal of 1.2% burn
3 Likes
If LUNC recovers after the collapse, then this coin will gather many fans and become an indestructible ecosystem. And I don’t believe in LUNA 2.0 at all, it was invented to prevent smearing, even if it costs $ 1000 in the future, I won’t buy it.
5 Likes
The arguments were made, a proposal was raised and the voting started. Doesn’t get more democratic than that.
It is the community’s time to decide…and those who control its implementation support and honor it!
1 Like
How so?
Afaik both 3568 and 4095 were voted using the existing governance system in place and both passed quorum. Therefore 100% legitimate.
I don’t have those types of delusions 
, not while the system is still de-pegged and LUNC supply on the trillions. I do think we need to start fixing it in reverse order though, and this proposal is on that roadmap.
3 Likes
I’ve been thinking about this 20% cap/voting power on delegations for validators…if someone delegates 20% immediately to one validator on fork further delegations will not be allowed.
But once more staking takes place with other validators the 20% on that single validator will come down. Is the code conducive of a dynamic on/off delegations for maximum delegations to a single validator when the percentage is constantly changing?
1 Like
Correct, as more delegations happen across the validator set, the total voting power increases. If a validator has capped out at 20 (out of 100 for example), but other validators increase their voting power, so now the total voting power is 200, the relative voting power of the original validator is now 20/200 or 10%. Thus, the validator can be delegated to and increase their stake. This recalculation happens every delegation command
4 Likes
Thnx rebels
1 Like
@SARL_AMK51 Oh my… you will still ask like that. You just don´t understand cryptocurrency. Plz stop.
2 Likes
I think you misunderstand how the burn works.
The tax is applied on transactions, which is what happens when people buy/sell/move/transfer their coins. So as long as the owner of the coins makes a transaction every time they do a 1.2% tax is applied to the amount moved which is burned.
For example, if you were to send a friend from your wallet 100 LUNC you would be charged 101.2 LUNC. So your friend gets 100 LUNC and an extra 1.2 LUNC from your account gets burned. I hope this clears things for you.
4 Likes
@SARL_AMK51 Your posts are hidden because you came here to argue because you lost some money. But we are here to start again and better. So it is getting flagged as spam because it is literally spam. @godoal I tried so hard to explain too, but he is just troller.
5 Likes
If delegations to all validators are over 10B tokens how will we ever burn LUNC down to 10B?
e.g If 1 Trillion LUNC are staked how do we burn more to go lower?
2 Likes
Hello my friend, you don’t need to vomit grudges here, you are not the only loser, there are millions of people. Everyone knows he has no choice but to save her. sleep well
2 Likes
The test run of 3568 on the mainnet analog gave us around 1.9B per day (if memory serves) with recent volumes. That was ONLY on-chain transactions and does not include CEX burns…do the math 
3 Likes
Thank you to all the yes voters and the TerraRebels.
1 Like