All,
I think many people are starting to understand that:
(1) the real value of LUNC is derived from its community and from the real utility of the chain; and
(2) no real economic activity can take place if 1.2% of one’s assets disapear each time a transaction is done.
This is not sustainable and no big player will ever use the chain or develop any product on top of it with the current implementation of the burn tax.
That being said, I think no burn tax at all would be contrary to the express wish of the community. And LUNC community is the biggest asset and hope we currently have.
What needs to be done is to find a tax that we know will not (k)ill the usability of the chain. Which chain has had high fees in the past and still maintained usability? Yup, Ethereum.
I think the LUNC community could consider keeping the 1.2% burn tax but capping it so that the tax would never cost more than the average ETH fee on the last 12-month for example.
At the moment, this would cap the tax somewhere between $2-$5 per transaction.
With a cap of $5, the 1.2% burn tax will fully apply up to a transaction value of $417. Above that, the burn tax will be capped to $5.
What this means is that the 1.2% burn tax will apply to the vast majority of the tx made on LUNC. But will apply partially to large transactions.
Big players that do not mind paying a $5 fee on ETH will not mind paying a $5 fee on LUNC. At the same time tho, we will not (k)ill the chain and will continue to burn on the long run.
Capping the fee to something we know is acceptable in the industry based on experience (as we would do using the average ETH fee) allows for the burn tax to survive and at the same time will not preclude real economic activity and utility to continue to take place on the chain in the future.