Proposal to Improve Burns Without Changing Tax and Increasing Chain Volume

Summary: This proposal aims to enhance the burn system without making changes to the fee and without increasing the volume in the chain. Currently, the 0.5% burn tax is split into 80% burns and 20% community pool (CP). My proposal takes into account only 80% of burns (ie 80% of 0.4%, which corresponds to 80% of 0.5%) and suggests securitizing that amount. Through burn securitization, the goal is to make burns more predictable, anticipate some burns, and increase volume through trading NFTs.

Why: The current burn system lacks reliable predictions and does not allow for adequate burn planning. This proposal aims to address these issues by providing a mechanism to make burns more predictable and increase volume within the system.

Proposal: The proposal consists of the following elements:

Creation of “LuncTax” NFTs:

The L1 team will create a collection of NFTs called “LuncTax”.
Owning and staking these NFTs will entitle the holders to receive 80% of the securitized burns for a period of 10 epochs (approximately 70 days).
Sale and Burn of LuncTax NFTs:

A portion of the LuncTax NFT collection will sell at a price calculated as the average burn rate over the past 10 eras, multiplied by 80% (the securitized percentage of the burn amount), divided by the number of pieces available (1,000. 000).
Unsold NFTs may be made available on a dedicated marketplace at a price 10% higher than the sale price.
The proceeds from the sale of the NFTs will be burned immediately.
Creating a Separate Oracle Pool:

A separate oracle pool will be created to receive taxes and distribute them to LuncTax stakeholders.
Governance Vote and Renewal of Securitization:

Two weeks before the 10 epochs expire, a governance vote will be called to decide whether to renew the NFT securitization or return to its current status.
If any LuncTax NFTs remain unsold, the remaining luncs in the new oracle pool will be burned at the end of the 10 epochs.
New Presale and Distribution of NFTs:

If the outcome of the governance vote is positive, one week before the 10 epochs expire, a pre-sale of the NFTs for the next period will start through an auction. The top 1,000,000 bids will get the rights to the taxes for the next 10 eras. The minimum bid starts from the initial sale price of the NFTs.
One day before the start of the new 10-Epoch period, NFTs will be distributed to the winners of the auction.
Benefits of the Proposal:

Make burns predictable within a defined 10 epoch period.
Anticipate some of the burns that will occur in the future.
Increase volume through trading NFTs (20% of the 0.4% tax that previously went entirely to the burn wallet will continue to be burned).
This proposal aims to improve the efficiency and predictability of the burn system without changing the fee and increasing the volume in the chain.

1 Like

Does the L1 team really have time to create NFT´s?

Are you in the layer1 team? I’m pretty sure you can’t answer the question you asked as if the answer on this were an axiom.

When a person, me or anyone else, makes a proposal, first of all you have to read it in order to respond. You need to understand what the author means, and then get an idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe benefits and disadvantages of what he proposes. After that, if you are intelligent, you express your opinion on the points of the proposal raised by the author, commenting on the positive and negative aspects. Your sterile comment doesn’t even deserve a reply.
The only reason, as of today, to have lunc is the hope that ustc will do a repeg.
To date, there is no certainty, so you have to invent something to resolve the situation. Instead of wasting time commenting like this, brainstorm and improve on what I said, or create a completely new solution.
You probably didn’t even understand “nfts” what they are for and why they make sense to exist in my proposal. Do, or try to do, your part or shut up.

how to burn more, without increasing taxes and without new dapps?
dflunc has found a way. I’m proposing another one.
States get into debt to maintain public spending and offload the burden to citizens, some of these subscribe to the bonds from which they earn, and continue to pay taxes.
it’s pretty much the same thing.
the state is the chain,
public spending is burns
citizens are the subjects who carry out transactions
the subscribers to the bonds are the stakers of the proposed NFTs.

  • anticipated burns
  • more burns thanks to the trading of the new products created
    -if it goes wrong, things stay that way.
    Possibility of renewing the proposal every x time or ceasing its validity.

I understand your proposal just fine, i just don´t like it :man_shrugging:
Feel free to create your “tax” nfts but stop trying to siphon away from the burntax
And the L1 team should not spend their time on things like this. They have way more important things to do.


Any NFT is an L2 project.
You can simply make your own and burn the proceeds.

the proposal is to securitize taxes, the NFTs represent the right to collect. Even if I create the NFTs, I simply can’t own the tax collection. therefore I could not do what I proposed. it has to be done by protocol, of course.
@Kryptobia fine, but what aspect do you not like and above all for what reason? if the sale of the collection right given by the rental of the NFTs takes place at the average price of burns in the past 10 periods, it means that if we sell all the NFTs, we burn immediately what on average we can expect would burn in 70 days. so you have today burned, what you would have gotten in 70 days.
if you don’t sell, you will burn the remaining proceeds in the new oracle pool in due time, you win either way.
“You don’t take anything away from the burntax” does what it’s supposed to do in advance. the advantage in doing so is given by the fact that in addition to anticipating burns now, those nfts can be exchanged, creating volume of exchanges on the chain and therefore increasing burns (since 20% of the 0.4% that previously went entirely to the portfolio d3eath continues to burn) any increase in tax revenue will be reflected in the next sale. this means that any news that could suggest an increase in volume on the chain and therefore in taxes pushes its trading, therefore the volume, therefore the taxes, therefore the burns and the evaluations of the subsequent sale. I’m curious to understand the flaws you see in it.but please let me know

1 Like

L1 is the foundation. L2 is dapp layer. Utility. Smart contracts. NFT. You are the owner of the smart contract. You can bake in whatever you want.

Get a developer from Fiverr.

1 Like

how should i divert chain tax destination from d3ad address to new oracle pool?

you shouldn´t, we don´t need another oracle pool and you should leave the tax alone. Find other ways to burn, build L2 dapps

but friend, can you please explain to me what you don’t like and enrich the reason why you don’t like it? if it burns, say, on average 900,000,000 lunc per month from the tax, wouldn’t it be better to see a burn of this sum on June 1st, rather than seeing it on June 30th? the exact same thing but in advance. This is possible thanks to the sale of the rights on the tax, the burden on speculators whether there will be more volumes or less, if the volumes increase, the prices of their NFTs will also increase and at the same time probably also the trading volume on them. since at present the volume is at a standstill, with the securitization of taxes and the possibility of selling the right of collection, an aid to the volume, even if minimal, gives it, and therefore the 20% that continues to go to address d3ath burns more than lunc than it would without this move.

i dont´t like it because this proposal is just the same as your previous prop, but instead of a token you now have switched to NFTS. You still want to siphon away from the burntax and reward the holders of your token or nft. Im sure you can create something like this without touching the tax, or hire someone to do it.

You don’t divert chain tax anyway.
That is immutable governance decision.

You take your NFT project and you set your own taxes and fees to the project and do what you want with the proceeds.

1 Like

true, but the nfts can be rented and the tokens cannot be rented, in this way every certain time it is possible to renew the offer or to stop it. moreover, for trading you have eliminated the need for liquidity pools. having said that, you have not criticized any technical aspect of the proposal saying what the cons you see would be.

I must admit that I have seen your replies to several posts and you seem smart enough to understand that if I did what you say, I would tell people to burn money, possibly someone would too, but the game would not last forever. if you understood the meaning of the proposal, you would understand that it is necessary to divert the tax. confuse the vehicle with the end.
tax = the vehicle
burns=the end
we are interested in burns. taxes burn on average x number of luncs per month. we sell the right to taxes and burn that sum first. I want to believe you know what happens when you create a financial instrument it can have valuations equal to multiples of its intrinsic value and expectations of more or less volume in the chain will reflect this in pricing. when alibaba splits into 6 companies, each of these will have its own valuation multiples and collectively they will be worth more than if they had remained merged into a single company. it’s the exact same thing in different guises. you just shifted the burn issue to the speculators, who burned today instead of the tax what the tax is expected to do in 70 days. hoping that the volume will be greater and they will be able to return from their investment, or out of pure speculation by selling the right to whoever wants it, at a higher price than what they paid. WE have our burns, they have their bets. to get something, you have to give something. principle necessary for any transaction that lasts over time. 20% will continue to burn as it does now and if the volume were to increase more than it has on average so far, the rest will be compensated either by the volume generated by NFT trading and from the selling price of the 10 subsequent eras. and in any case this should go through governance. but please evaluate the goodness of the proposal and do not discard it regardless. I made this proposal because I would earn as a lunc holder as you all, I from the NFTs, from trading commissions and from the rest I would get nothing. the de facto right on taxes belongs to the community, it is sold as a lease. after 10 epochs we choose whether to renew.

So instead, you decide that making a governance proposal that mandates how L1 is now in charge of making NFT collections and they would subvert community tax in a way that suits your alignments - that this would somehow be a better option?

See…What use is the right to burn, since NFT holders or any user isn’t burning their assets willingly.

If they would be - no need for such NFT collection. Since you are selling a “right to burn” - which is like selling snow to eskimos. They can already burn if they want to

This proposal has no merit on this chain at current development level. And it is entirely useless and enforceable since your entire plan rests on L1 to implement it and deal with it and Governance would need to accept that already passed economical props of last week should now be treated as useless, since Monkey had a plan to divert bananas into NFTs.

1 Like

hahaha you made me laugh.
in any case.
they voted for a tax. whose purpose is to burn.
these holders acquire the right to collect taxes. not the right to burn. seems clear enough to me yet you seem confused about it. they pay the rent for this right in lunc and burn the proceeds. we have burns and they have a bet.

“my alignments”
for starters it’s called a proposal, not an imposition, for a reason.
may be subject to change, of course, if greater benefits can be obtained. but evaluate the goodness of the latter instead of stopping at the first conclusions you draw.
don’t you want lunc to burn more, without raising taxes? evaluate how what they propose can help in this sense, I have thought about it and I really think it can work.
taxes go into the d3ath wallet, according to my proposal in the new oracle pool.
the proceeds of the sale go to the d3ath wallet.
70 days in advance.

And thus you siphon off from taxes. Literally asking governance to change their minds…

dude I subtract from taxes… but you burn the proceeds which is almost equivalent to the average of taxes for the same period. we only “lose” if the taxes collected will be greater than the burns from the sale, BUT this will be offset by the trading volume (as it is taxed and some tax continues to burn) and the next sale in the next 10 epoch period as it would be reflected in the price. moreover it is also possible to insert a % of royalties on the sale of NFTs which ends up directly in the d3ath wallet or to be sent there subsequently, containing this “risk” even more. suppose you make 30k dollars a year you take out a bank loan of 28500 dollars and 1500 are the expenses dollars that you lose from your salary. you have a little less but you have them on January 1 instead of having them spread over a year, which could be convenient for you depending on what you have to do. we practically don’t even have “this loss”, as it can be compensated by the part of the tax that remains sent to the d3ad wallet and by the trading volume generated which in any case remains taxed. moreover, if desired, it is possible to set a royalty on the NFTs to further reduce this potential “loss”. which in any case will be reflected in the prices of the 10 subsequent eras. Come on brother, some math. taxes one day are 200,000,000 lunc, the next day 16,000,000 what do you think will happen to the valuation of these nfts when overnight the taxes collected are x10 again? the trading volume of these assets would go crazy, all of us lunc holders, we would have to gain from this.

1 Like


Say no more, Monkey
You have convinced yourself of this plan.

1 Like