Proposal for the 1.2% Tax Parameter Change

We saw them joe.

We tested the 1.2 % TAX, volume on-chain dropped by 1/10. CEX - es will not support. So we should recompute and set it on 0.2% and try again with CEX -es.

2 Likes

@tolben Do you mind sharing some of your graphs or the source of your information?
What kind of parameters do you check to say that “The burn tax is very successful” so far?

I bealive this might work better and more attraktiv to cexs 1,2 dont work so lower it or remove it tbh.

Also it seems there is a bug on Binance when trying to withdraw fund, 102’000 Lunc fees for withdrawing currently, that might also explain that people are waiting big fix to send Lunc on chain.

Exactly why I want to start having this discussion now and a proposal ready before we see the 1.2 is not as effective as assumed and major damages might happen!

Again, there is no proposal yet, and I want to reach out and challenge the community to please comment and discuss this with me and everyone else here!

Anything between 0.2 and 0.5 is still very good and if implemented offchain would burn Billions of LUNC.
Right now we’re at 1.2% out of greed and short-sightedness.

2 Likes

We need to change this part quickly. Let’s go vote right now.

The volume has increased and almost doubled. There is nothing wrong with tax burn. Its a problem with Binance having trillions of Lunc and not making burn tax mandatory on trading. Indirectly Binance is/can control LUNC, unless you remove it from Binance and list on exchanges who implement tax burn on everything. If people wants LUNC then they will follow LUNC and trade on another exchange.

@www.hottstocks.com May I share a graph or source of information?
What parameters do you check so far to say “incineration is very successful”? And where can I see that the volume has doubled?

I wouldn’t f’ with success here. 1.5B in about three days with low volatility, and not 100 percent operational from minute one. Stability without the complexity will favor long-term success.

Three popular burn sites you can dive into:

https://luncpenguins.com/
https://lunc.tech/live

Please share your data where the volume has doubled.
Binance is holding Users LUNC, there is no proof for your claims whatsoever that they’re manipulating the price.
I think your statements fit better into Twitter and other social media, this is a serious discussion about the future of the burntax so either you back up your claims with graphs or facts or you don’t make them.

The dashboard in TS shows me a drastic decrease in volume, and as long as anyone has proof otherwise, these are the facts for me.

@Akujiro How do you think about lowering the tax rate step by step? The result is that transfering volume is decreasing near by 1/10 before the implementation tax.
I think that the tax rate is appropriate to 0.2~0.25% now.

2 Likes

I’m not sure what the goalposts are for successful burn are outside of 10b LUNC supply (which is impossible currently due to the amount of LUNC bonded)

You can view volume on the Terra Station main page, which has dropped nearly -90% on-chain. If there’s interest in opting into the tax yourself, you can move your money onto Binance, but this completely defeats the purpose of having Terra exist in the first place.

So far burn projections have decreased from 23 lifetimes to just one lifetime for full efficacy. The Astroport trailing 24h volume is only 6.2m USTC which is a little sad. Trading opportunities have diminished outside of shorting both USTC/LUNC which is not something I really want to do, to be honest.

That’s offchain volume on CEXs, I am talking about onchain volume here that you can see attached as an image.

image

This image is showing how the volume ONCHAIN is decreasing.
CEXs don’t seem to eager to pick up offchain taxes with 1.2% either.
Only Binance gave us an impossible task to do, and MEXC is not burning regularly and proven to not burn 1.2% at all, always round 0.2-0.3

1 Like

CZ has put button to subscribe for burn tax or not, who would willingly pay burn tax? CZ only cares about his customers. if Binance makes it mandatory exact 1.2 % then we would be able to burn 99% supply within 1 to 1.5 years otherwise like this it would take 15 years and if we continue chatting like this and do nothing then LUNC would go to all time low within next few days.

@www.hottstocks.com If 1.2% off-chain burn is applied, it will experience a more severe decrease in trading volume. With just 1.2% on-chain burn, the transaction volume has decreased to 1/10. Where did the 99% burn within one year come from? Do you think that trading volume will remain the same?

This graph was failty. Now it corrects data. I already said…

if the supply doesnt come to 15 billion within 1.5 - to 2 years then LUNC will be deaaad as nobody will wait for 15 years and you are talking about 0.1% and 0.2%.

Lunc daily $500M AUD volume would trade 1.2 Trillion LUNC daily and burn 430 billion lunc per month, and around 3 trillion in 6 months with current price if burn tax applied on every single transaction.

below numbers are in Aud

As long as you don’t charge too high taxes, IBCs and repegs will naturally increase the trading volume. What I want to say is to increase the amount of incineration by increasing the trading volume. Imposing taxes that are too high will discourage people from trading and will leave them out of the market. It is so dangerous.

@kch2134 I agree.