I disagree burns will not help (they are the only thing currently that has reduced supply - and in reality that can from a technical standpoint - only burning can permanently remove supply).
From an economic standpoint, there is a very narrow time when higher taxes actually advantage a situation. Yet, as I have thought about it over the past few days I have had to face the fact all over again that supply reduction, in the form of a community buy back and burn program, is one aspect, among a few others that have been identified (but do not significantly exist currently), that can reduce supply - and is the only one, minus Binanceās outside burns (which are predicated on on-chain burning), and a few dApps, validators, and/or individuals that are doing some burning, that is.
Itās about 78 years at 240M average burned per day (based on current volumes) with a 1.2% burn tax, not including Binance. If we raise the tax we push for CEX adoption, which led to Binance doing burns for us. Ask Binance to increase their burns when we show we are serious about burning, wallet whitelist other exchanges internal wallets and get them to burn off-chain. Then suddenly we arenāt at 78 years but much much faster, and will see the price rise. What I laid out is the path to $1+.
Since you have done the calculation yourself, I believe the impossibility of the task is evident.
All we are currently doing is pushing development teams away from Terra Luna Classic. If thatās what burn boys want, then fine. Iām up for it.
Everyone wonāt be here around 70 years later to be answerable to the community. Since they wonāt be, my suggestion is this:
Anyone who suggests a burn plan has to own it up. So, he will first show mathematically how much will be burnt per day if his plan is implemented. We are going to observe the burn rate after implementing for 2 days. If the burn rate isnāt reaching what has been described previously when submitting the proposal, then the proponent or team behind the proposal will pay back 10x (10 times) of whatever has been burnt in 2 days to the community pool and will be banned from submitting any more proposals in the future.
Since you want to deal out chain punishments, first you can draw up punishments for those who agreed to minting first by the 0.2% with 10% mint, then by the 50% mint, and go ask them to pay back all our lost burns after we dropped 1.2% and the 50% we lost of Binance burns? How about that?
There are no opponents of burning. Itās in your mind currently, if there is indeed anything like that.
I am surprised why it hasnāt been done so till now. I am completely towards penalizing any action which has been damaging towards the chain, including all the previous decisions which have been taken. You saw very clearly I objected (very clearly again) to the last change in the respective thread. Still everyone passed it and the calculation was incorrect which is being corrected again in another proposal now. If it were in my power, I would ban all these people from submitting any proposal in the future and to pay back 1 Billion LUNC to the community pool or get lost.
Exactly man. Adoption beyond Binance and OnChain has never really been promoted. Most people seem to think that once a prop passes governance - it will automatically be adopted without effort. In real life there is no such thing. Any law that is passed needs to be enforced. Otherwise it is useless. Truth is, that the leadership at the time of introducing the tax capitulated on promoting CeX adoption of the burn tax at the first signs of trouble (kucoin rejecting the idea). The rest of community didnt do much either in this regard.
75 years on paper or whatever it is, is better than nothing. If we were in a better global market situation, this would be totally different. Removing the tax completely because of the current market situation is beyond stupid. It equals to buy high and selling low.
Tax should be expanded not removed as Jesus here says - the only change we need is that it needs actively promoted.
Yes this is my vision for LUNC to $1+ as in my validator roadmap which I will continue to work towards. Raising on-chain tax to 1.5% (0.3% to community pool), 1.2% burn tax. On board exchanges using wallet whitelist and community pressure to adopt 1.2% burn tax on buy/sells. Binance and Kucoin are the main ones to get on board. CZ already said he would do 1.2% off-chain if other exchanges did. The community gave up after 3 weeks which was a horrible decision. If we had have persevered we could have achieved our goals by now. But itās not too late and I will continue to push for this, rather than amorphous āutilityā and legally risky and possibly chain fatal USTC re-peg as our only hope.
The only thing I can say is that I am developing applications myself so that we do not have to do this. This is not a good way to tell people to invest in LUNC. There are definitely many possible ways to burn some LUNC every day. Without having to deal with high taxes.
I understand where youāre coming from. Your view represents the āDevelopersā arm of the chains holly trinity power structure [Developers, Validators, Delegators].
Based on that, dApp developers (entrepreneurs) and solutions being built on our chain, trying to capitalize on the large LUNC community, might be slightly disadvantaged by the tax increase when applied to their dApp contracts.
What gets me is that not all of us, Delegators, understand that we are a power pylon in itself and have the responsibility to push proposals that makes sense in the context of a Delegators point of view.
For example:
Validators will always be in favor of lucid commissions than fixed ones. Check how many respect/implement the voted 5%
dApp developers will always want no taxes whatsoever to reduce the overhead they place on their customers over and above the fees they apply for transactions on their platform. Check on any LUNC DeFi platform how much they charge per trade.
Delegators will simply always want a supply squeeze to make the coin price skyrocket.
[The balance between the three is tricky, but using that prism you can most of the time identify which power pylon the speaker comes from and what are their driving motives, and therefore their campaign]
P.S. There are exceptions and those that abide by the wider communityās decisions but thatās the blueprint of how it works.
If you are not a Developer or a Validator and you stake your coins, that makes you a Delegator.
That is absolutely correct and the next prop I am about to finish and submit is of an AMM, something that makes around 100-300 trades in a day per user. The current fees of Binance is approximately 0.15%. High volume of trades means that the profit margin per trade is less, maybe even lesser than 1%. So, if there is a tax of approximately 1.2% on top of 1% profit, then I am ending up making losses rather than profits.
Now, say I include the tax in the profit. So it becomes, 2.2% that I have to profit the user per trade to actually make him profit anything. I think you can already see the impossibility of the situation if the trade is happening every 5 minutes in which time the price will never profit by more than 1.5%. It will never reach + 2.2% to begin with.
This is causing devs to shift to other blockchains where I donāt need to deal with these taxes. The only tax per se in other coins is the gas which is understandable and will always be charged and I can still exclude from my calculations.
You can get exempted or whitelisted, see dfunkās proposal here on agora. If we make more from on-chain tax, thereās no reason to penalise the apps that come on-chain. We get extra burns anyway from the activity they generate which leads to more indirect taxed on-chain activity without actively taxing them.
I am not sure about what youāre talking about. I think I have seen his proposal. Does it have a mechanism via which dApps can be whitelisted from tax?
and burntax fanboys simply donĀ“t get that tax is doneā¦hype is overā¦ItĀ“s Getting shut down hard in governance and cexĀ“s will NEVER implement it. Maybe some will do buy back and burn, but a tax will never ever happen. IĀ“m suprised jesus havenĀ“t told you this. Have a blessed day
Yes I am aware about this one. And I have supported it also. Comment Number 35 as far as I think. I have been harping about the same thing since a long time. So I would have supported this. I am not sure whether this was passed or it became a proposal or not.
