I really dont see the point of this securitized thingy…your robbing peter to pay paul…looked at LuncBurn, it seems like a much simpler and effective way to get sustained burns in my opinion.
1 Like
you talk like that just because you don’t see it. taxes are needed to burn, but as you can clearly see among the various sites that monitor tax burns, the current rate is not sufficient to guarantee adequate burns. without there being more movement on the chain, how can we increase this volume and improve the burn system? my answer is “we package the burns and sell the expectation that they will increase” therefore we securitize them in such a way as to create a financial instrument suitable for the sale. the sale of this right on the collection of taxes gives us an anticipated burn, the sale guarantees us that the burns are higher than the average of the same previous period. any tax increases within this period (which I remind you now go to the stakers of these nfts) will be incorporated into the prices of the nfts, so trading mitigates this “loss burn” of ours. moreover, the sale of the subsequent period will reflect the new average values recorded. therefore we only have to earn. read the explanations I left in the comments.
you talk like that just because you don’t see it. taxes are needed to burn, but as you can clearly see among the various sites that monitor tax burns, the current rate is not sufficient to guarantee adequate burns. without there being more movement on the chain, how can we increase this volume and improve the burn system? my answer is “we package the burns and sell the expectation that they will increase” therefore we securitize them in such a way as to create a financial instrument suitable for the sale. the sale of this right on the collection of taxes gives us an anticipated burn, the sale guarantees us that the burns are higher than the average of the same previous period. any tax increases within this period (which I remind you now go to the stakers of these nfts) will be incorporated into the prices of the nfts, so trading mitigates this “loss burn” of ours. moreover, the sale of the subsequent period will reflect the new average values recorded. therefore we only have to earn. read the explanations I left in the comments.
Volume.
1 Like
Honestly the more you explain the more confusing to the average person…to me makes no sense…infact i actually just bought LuncBurn instead…its a no brainer…
Forgive me, the message I had to reply with earlier was this:
was to say that if the structure needs to be changed, I think the l1 team should take care of it. moreover this would be to the benefit of all lunc holders. to make sure you understand and then to exaggerate:
ALL NUMBERS ARE AS AN EXAMPLE.
would you like there to be an immediate burn of 100,000,000,000 lunc?
how much does the tax currently burn? let’s say 200,000,000 a day.
so let’s assume, according to the averages, that in 500 days we have 100,000,000,000 lunc burned.
obviously this number can be revised both upwards and downwards.
someone is found who wants to take the risk that this figure will be higher.
he (or they) burns 100,000,000,000 lunc for us today for the rent of the NFT and therefore of the right to collect taxes, and he enjoys the collection of taxes, if he was right, good for him, otherwise great for us , if he’s right, we would still have gotten a big burn immediately, plus, being negotiable, trading will generate volume and therefore more taxes. therefore more burns. (because 20% still burns).
any increase in volume and “missed burns” during this period will be recovered on the next sale incorporating all new expectations recalculated according to the new data.
in any case, it has nothing to do with what I mean. the volume, okay, which is taxed.
taxes were created for burns, so when you argue with me about tax deflection you forget why they were created.
what interests us is that it burns, that the burns come directly from taxes or from the sale of the right to these, it doesn’t matter, right?
the volume is currently low. taxes burn little. look at the current 5-year projections and see how much supply is declining.
let those who want to bet on an increase in volume give us our burns in advance and negotiate these instruments in order to increase it.
you’re sticking to “single words” and countering to no avail. look at things from a broader perspective, trying to grasp the concept if you don’t understand it.
thank you for reducing the supply of token I hold, what can I tell you? I’m not against the luncburn project. I will provide a drawing to avoid any misunderstanding.
You are trying to circumvent taxes and force NFT sales. Focus on volume as that is what matters.
#ProjectLUNCBURN
but could I ever recommend something against my interest? i want lunc to burn. more than now. if you do what I propose, I’ll pay the tax if I move money on the chain, as you and as the nfts holder. all Will pay the tax again. only it goes to the stakers of these nfts. who burned lunc to get them. the burns that should have done the taxes , the sale does it days in advance. and the volume of these financial assets increases volume and thus burns. which then, I would like to point out that the more the price goes up, the more the volume tends to increase. and this manoeuvre, by decreasing the supply over a short period of time, is an excellent driver for increasing the price. man i also made a drawing. personally I don’t earn anything from it, as it would be all at the protocol level, we all earn from it as a lunc holder, just like you. renewing the lease every 70 days allows any increases in volume to be reflected in sales prices in the next 10 epochs, limiting the only risk we have. which in any case is largely mitigated by the rest.
what are you a cult? it has nothing to do with this project. I wish you good luck, indeed I invite you to buy their nfts, burn lunc, I can only say thank you. but something completely different is being proposed here. so please. answers consistent with the topic.
@HappyCattyCrypto1
I don’t know what you see as the same in that project, but it is talking about something different, please review it and express an honest opinion on the potential implications and results of the implementation of my proposal.