Proposal to Increase the Burn Tax

He’s already exempt from seigniorage, so it doesn’t affect him…

1 Like

yeah, and we all remember WHO started all those rumors :cowboy_hat_face:

We also remember how he packaged his proposal to have dev rewards and tax rate packaged as one, instead of two proposals, as to get sympathy votes. :slight_smile:

Never, vegas stole enough, never again support anything from him!

5 Likes

What? If you want restore lunc value, you should fight for ustc repeg…another one who dont understand…

I support this. Even 1.2% burn tax was ok, it could be gained back in staking rewards in a couple of weeks. With 1.2% burn tax lunc was targeted to 10 billion lunc circulation in 20-25 years, with current burn tax it is not in our lifetime.

Do you see dApps being developed? Maybe some, but not enough. Do you see repeg in the future? I doubt.

6 Likes

Preach brother :slight_smile:

It looks as though a lot of people are voting No because they follow the storyline their “Master” Decepticon fed them. That same person has now parted ways from LUNC and is hand in hand with the LUNA club. The second Decepticon master fed them the lie that reducing Tax will increase our chain volume and we’ll end up burning more LUNC; oh well we’ve been burning 1/5 of our normal rate since then and surprise surprise NO VOLUME INCREASE. What a revelation…not that they would care to admit :wink:

Not sure what you’re referring to, if you want a progress update as to what the 150k is buying us and/or TR is doing with them you should be in here

Development costs money and we need to keep reducing the supply to attract more liquidity with the deflationary coin storyline for now…

4 Likes

imagine such situation, ustc is repegged to 1$. Will we have more new lunc investors or less? Even with this lunc prize. More lunc investors = more on chain transactions = more burns
Sorry but I still dont see your point regarding that burning lunc is better that burning ustc…

You can re-peg it to 1$, 10$ or 100$, that number is only fictional until you prove you can maintain the peg to the otherwise stablecoin. It’s all about being STABLE and doing a re-peg on the current LUNC price to $1 is like making money from thin air.

I am in favor of the Zaradar unidirectional peg (not to $1 but equivalent to $1) approach for the time being but that doesn’t look like it’s getting any traction…so in the meantime we need the tried and tested method of reducing the hyperinflated supply of LUNC which is the TAX.

That’s because I didn’t make any point about this :slight_smile:
LUNC is the second pair in the Terra seigniorage machine that got hyperinflated when the 1$ peg failed. To restore the system you need to reverse the process, hence reducing the LUNC hyperinflated supply…

3 Likes

Increasing taxes on the community (the little guys and the businesses using money for transactions) to fix inflation (aka printing of too much cash) is the same kind of stupid the governments of the world do. And look at how much the average tax payer gets screwed IRL?
My 2 cents.

Not everything is about CZ and Binance…

Have you ever paid tax? I don’t know about you, but in my country we pay up to 45% income tax and 43% capital gains tax.

Having a 0.8-1.5% tax on transactions is nothing, especially since we should be burning and funding our chain with the tax. Tax is common on credit cards and other payment services. A reasonable tax is very suitable for LUNC for our needs.

6 Likes

Everybody knows that.

I assume you are a big dapps developer moving around daily 1bil LUNC and increasing the burn tax from 0.2% to 0.8% greatly affects your revenue.
Reducing the burn tax rate from 1.2% to 0.2% in less than a month did absolutely nothing (except of lowering the price of LUNC) in terms of transactions increase. I still remember some charts provided by some people showing huge volumes to come due to tax reduction…

4 Likes

looks like this proposal voting doesn’t go as expected…am afraid it might be another lesson the community has to learn the hard way!

Does anyone still remember the one setting/increasing the seigniorage flag we tried to stop which end up causing Binance to pull the plug in the burns?

(…history is destined to repeat itself, we’ll pick this up again in 3-6 months)

4 Likes

voting is going as expected, maybe talk to people outside of the burntax bubble

1 Like

DYOR - Hint: The question to ask is:
Did the reduction of the tax bracket from 1.2% to 0.2% bring the advertised results?

Then you will know if it’s a burntax bubble or simply people doing their own research…

Original 0.2% tax reference posts:

3 Likes

They are whitelisted for the exact reason not to worry about these changes.

1 Like

A lot of people just dont understand that the tax if left only ON chain is just irrelevant, this has been discussed countless times but i will just throw this in.

The volume did not drop because of the tax , it dropped because the initial hype was over. Everyone was expecting the tax to be applied ON and OFF chain and since it wasnt , most of the moon guys made some profit and left.

This is the current estimate for the burn target of 10b, even if you increase the Tax 10x, with the current on chain volume it would still be long long time before we see any significant effects (keep in mind that volume keeps declining).

In my opinion there are 3 ways this can be achieved.

  1. Apply a smaller tax of lets say 0.02% for both ON and OFF chain burns ( will need the agreement of all the exchanges)

  2. Enough utility to increase the on chain activity exponentially.

3.Buyback and burn from investors/projects ( What binance is doing).

What would be better, 0.8% from $100k or 0.02% from $104m?

image

Also Vegas might have done wrong but the guy has done a lot for the chain, he deserves some credit.

Just my opinion.

2 Likes

I’d rather get stable consistent burns every day even if the projected time for completing on-chain burns is 50-75 years (it could be a lot quicker with higher volumes from having sustainable price rise), then wait longer for the fabled utility which seems more like an incomprehensible amorphous blob at this point incapable of proper definition or timeframes. At least we can calculate how long an on-chain burn takes. How long are we going to wait on 0.2% for utility with tiny burns and no funding? We’ve been waiting on 0.2% for how long and it’s not delivering on its promises. Everyone gave the 1.2% tax 3 weeks but give the 0.2% utility argument months with poor performance?

We should raise the tax and get serious about burns and funding the chain (which brings utility), and then push for off-chain adoption like we did in the beginning when we had the 1.2% which resulted in securing Binance’s support.

7 Likes

I think the community would give up of burning and leave LUNC as it is.
The attractive of LUNC is the easy and fast way to transfer assets. The burning tax keep more people away from lunc

2 Likes