For those interested in a visual representation of what this proposal aims to achieve and the historic records of what/when has happened on the chain based on the chain burn metrics:
Now you have (FACTS) all the block numbers and proposal numbers that affected the tax along with the burn volume metric. Not much of a volume/burn increase in the 5 MONTHS 0.2% has been active now, is it? The 1.2% tax option was active for under 3 WEEKS!
Feel free, and please DO, double-check those with your favorite chain explorer.
P.S. Now you know why the burntax bubble people are asking, again and again, the same question that all non-burntax bubble people avoid responding to: Did the reduction of the tax bracket from 1.2% to 0.2% bring the advertised results?
No it obviously didnât, but they donât care. They still think tax kills the chain and are still waiting for mystery dapps to burn everything for them, and the legally risky and possibly fatal chain experiment of a USTC re-peg, even though we canât afford to even fund it and the legal advice required before touching it, on our low tax funding rate. Itâs just like politics in LUNC.
Maybe itâs me being naive. My take on that is that they (delegators) DONT KNOW because they have not done their research to know the facts and therefore blindly follow the âtrust me broâ crowd feeding them all sorts of ideas without providing any evidence.
This image imo contains the blatant unrefutable evidenced truth:
Yes i do, let utility grow on chain, let the USTC peg work again with mint/burn mechanism (zaradar has already said this will burn 50kx fater then the tax) and let the volume pick up again, we have no utilities becaus the tax code stopps them.
How does every other chain pay for utilities? A lot of them charge the utilities to develop on thier chain, we will still donot for free to them, parity with Luna 2 will help too as this makes it a lot easier to come over, there are many different options other then a burn tax.
CZ said burn taxs kills volume, buy back and burn
There are ones who donât care for the truth but have a vendetta against the tax and will speak lies and mislead people to get their way. This is common on Twitter and numerous influencers are doing it.
Iâve seen numerous ones claim Binance will drop burns if we raise the tax, a complete re-writing of history as Binance once supported the 1.2% and only threatened to stop due to minting.
Others keep repeating the same lines, âTax kills the chainâ, âUtilityâ, âUSTC repegâ, anything but the tax which will burn more LUNC and fund the chainâŚ
But if both the 0.8% and my 75/25% fail, then I will keep pushing anyway for a higher tax and a suitable tax split later. Itâs part of my validator roadmap. I have downloaded your chart thank you.
There is NOTHING that supports the notion that a swing between 1.2% to 0.2% stops utilities to develop or be onboarded in the chain. We DID NOT allow 1.2% tax enough time to understand its effects on the chain if any.
What we do know for a fact, after 5 months, is that a reduction of the tax rate from 1.2% to 0.2% did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the chain volume.
Thereâs also people in the âburntax raise campâ that spin their own narrative of how 1.2% causes âhypes and pumpsâ which canât be backed by any evidence as shown in this chart. The only pump we saw was 1) staking enabling and 2) CZ trading fee burn announcement.
Itâs interesting that when 1.2% was actually live, the price started to tank and only stopped when 2) was announced.
The main argument for a tax increase brought forward by @Vegas is âhype and pumpâ narrative which canât be backed with any evidence so far and he refuses to accept the simple fact that it unfortunately didnât work in that regards.
I supported 1.2% tax introduction myself as a means to rallye the community and use it as leverage for Binance Off-chain burns, which we actually got and @Vegas deserves credit for that. I donât see how raising the tax would help in reduction of supply or price appreciation at this point and would rather remove it completely at this point whenever the parity upgrade is going to be released.
As I stated on many other posts, am in favor of the tax burn method until the point where the L1 enables (at least) a unidirectional re-peg so the seigniorage machine coded in the chain itself starts to burn LUNC for us reversing in effect the hyperinflation action.
So, I strongly recommend that large investors and validators vote for an increase in burning tax:
The burning will grow rapidly, the token price will grow strongly.
Investors will increase their capital, validators will receive higher commissions.
I also strongly recommend moving the public pool to staking.
This is the main point. CZ Binance said in an AMA, I heard him say he would adopt the 1.2% off-chain if other exchanges did so also. This was a HUGE bit of information, but unfortunately instead of persevering with pressuring exchanges, we dropped the 1.2% after 3 weeks.
Now we have an even better incentive with the wallet whitelist. We can raise the tax and push for off-chain adoption which is the real path to $1+.
In the meantime with a higher tax we get more on-chain burns and funding for the chain and oracle pool, and no exchange will adopt off-chain burn if we donât burn ourselves.
Most of the people here are hoping that the developers will come up with a binding algorithm that will destroy the extra sentence. But think about it, how can you destroy coins if they belong to someone? Or were not all minted coins bought? Otherwise, as through a tax, they cannot be reduced in any way. This is mathematics. Finally, understand that it is impossible to make an omelette without breaking eggs.
Lot of funny discussions against increasing the burn rate because those dapps that donât exists yet but might exists at some point in the future might experience issues when those dapps might move around hundreds of billions lunc around.
Those dapps that wonât come to lunc chain because the chain is not attractive to investors because it has a huuuuge oversupply.
I also find it amusing to see people talking about lunc as if it is top 10 chain project (actually it is 64 and in 3 months most likely will be out of top 100) and everybody is fighting to be part of it.
Aaaa, letâs not forget about those guys shouting we donât need Binance.
This project is slowly becoming irrelevant and you can see it in price evolution, coinmarketcap status and so onâŚ
How can we apply this to multiple exchanges?
LUNC falls due to a failed roadmap, lack of repeg actions (despite the proposal passed (high of the year was here).
Raise the on-chain tax. Ask Binance to raise off-chain burns. Ask Kucoin and others to burn off-chain, if they agree whitelist their internal wallets. Keep pushing and donât give up after 3 weeks like we did last time.
I really do wonder exactly how, without a burn of some fairly significant type (which as one user pointed out, in the past, is really just a community buy back supply reduction program), and/or an incentivized system on the other (which would be better, but I am hard pressed to find one yet in my mind, given our current reality), that people plan on legitimately removing supply to help continue to restore the chain.
We have gone through this a hundred times now - we have discussed over and over again that burns are not gonna help. If anyone wants to raise this again and again, just calculate yourself how long it takes to burn 5 trillion Lunc if you burn around 3-4 million per day. I dunno why this simple maths isnât understandable.
