I think you are right about taxing the rewards. I posted otherwise but I was wrong
This is a good proposal sir…
there is no limit in a parameter proposal. It is just setting the tax rate. When the supply gets to a certain level, another parameter proposal can be given to stop the burn
14 Likes
Sounds awesome kim, can’t thank you enough.
You are gonna be a hero for the investors who lost there money. And you are writing a new chapter in blockchain industry.
5 Likes
@ek826 Well done with the write-up. I think I speak for a majority of the community when I say let’s proceed as is. If we can get the proposal completion time as close to the block height, that would be great. We can fine tune later once we start to see actual burning occur.
@system Can we have confirmation from TFL what you will merge the changes Edward and Terra Rebels are requiring? We do appreciate your assistance with this and will remember it in the future.
I tried to tag do kwon in the post but it’s unable to do that.
2 Likes
You certainly thought about it, If it comes to this why not transform the 1.2 % burn tax into a 1.2% tax that helps the ecosystem to live.
Also I’m wondering if you had any contact with TFL regarding your proposals yet ?
Thank you for the awesome work.
Hey Kim , I just want to know is this the appropriate time to implement burn code on a halted chain(2time) . Are this currently still that strong enough to implement burn code on economic activities? I dont think we are running out of time . Whats your thought on that. Whats your thought on stability of chain .??
The ideal target supply should be 1 billion not 10 billion.
3 Likes
Personally I have to say that 5 days response time and time to merge is too short.
In the chrome extension there are 300 changed lines of code in 17 files, same for station itself.
Finder has already been merged.
The proposal with the time-spans added feels like a bit too much pressure added. TFL has shown willingness to merge proposed code before. They might again, but overstressing it could be bad in the end.
I understand that the community wants the tax rather sooner than later and you get asked for “wen tax” all the time, but at the same time founding a separate ecosystem of apps would be a very bad thing at the current stage in my opinion.
While the first is true in theory, the second is not. The tax should apply to all denoms as far as I understood it. See the proposal text again:
Regarding the first this only applies to on-chain internal market swap, which is currently disabled anyway.
Swapping through astroport/terraswap which is the only way to do it right now, the tax should apply as it is a MsgExecuteContract and not a MsgSwap. Correct my if I am wrong.
I think the activity this week shows that it is worth a try. Worstcase scenario you can change parameters after.
1 Like
The community has shown that it has entered. If tlf tries to stand in the way of this, the community will fork itself. After this time, no one can stand in front of me. do kwon Will unwillingly support. You don’t have to be greedy. He wanted to do this work by collecting from the bottom. Although the current way is a little more costly, I think it is healthier. terra foundation has to give the necessary support.
I think the #Fed will limit the rate hike to 0.50 basis points. The 0.75 interest rate will only confirm the recession. this will set the spring mood for the cryptocurrency market. It will reach its $1 target for #lunc in less time. #btc #Bitcoin #LUNA #lunaclassic
Greetings.
Is there the chance to keep the potential epoch target to 93. So if TFL dont accept pull requests, we still can vote on September 6. Or do u acctually need an extra week to released new terra station wallet with tax burn implemented?
Thanks.
1 Like
I suggest that we amend the tax proposal so a smaller portion of the tax goes to the community pool (no more than 0.2% of the 1.2%) and is not burnt. This could be used later by the community to pay Devs, provide grants to Dapp developers and provide collateral for to help repeg and stabilize USTC. Proposals for where the community funds should go can be vetted and voted on the community in the future, but I am sure we will need it at some point in the future to truly revitalize the chain. Pointing a small portion of the tax, even just 0.1% would ensure funding is there when it is needed in the future.
2 Likes
Lol. So look at the long term. Don’t you realize how much the value of the asset will increase as a result of a decrease in overall turnover. A long term investor will more than recoup that percentage, pick another cryptocurrency, if you are a regular reseller and need to send it back and forth, that percentage will eat you up :). You underestimate the very concept of this cryptocurrency and its possibilities. Abolishing burning will ki11 the chain. Go trade Polkadot if that percentage scares you:р
2 Likes
god bless you
tanx you are legend you are hero you save my life bucease buy luna 50 $ now very low
7000$ all my mony is lost
after AIRE DROP KUCOIN 15$ luna send my wallet
Support this proposal, thanks!
2 Likes
Potentially this will deter short sellers, and reduce volatility, both are extremely positive for serious investors.
2 Likes
I propose to add 0.002-0.005 tax to LUNA 2.0 in order to buy and burn LUNC, this will increase interest in both
1 Like