Absolutely horrendous idea. At 1.2% it destroyed the ecosystem, at 0.2% there’s an opportunity for us to start building and burning, at 0.8% its simply destroying us again.
You’ve destroyed the ecosystem once, extorted the community of $150k at second attempt, this appears like an attempt at 3rd time lucky.
Regards whitelisting dApps like the casino can not be whitelisted, it simply adds extra cost onto people accessing services.
Do you think an exchange or dApp can be competitive when the dApp next door has a % discount to you.
You destroyed the ecosystem once, the longest serving dApp in Terra (Smart Stake) is just leaving, builders need stability not lunacy.
12 Likes
no one was extorted, there was a proposal and people voted for that proposal. now whether it was a bad choice is another story. stop making up lies, nobody stole or extorted anyone. You guys from TCV keep promoting yourselves to sell the dex coin you are building, you are no better than anyone else.
4 Likes
I don’t know about Pluto ,but if we keep attractive to investors ,the rest will come.we have the hardest that is a community .
1 Like
Merits due consideration. However, keep in mind Tobias’s suggestion to redirect burn tax to Ustc…
The tax burns ustc as well
1 Like
What ecosystem was destroyed by the 1.2%??? There was no ecosystem operating at that time!!
The 0.2% was consistently pushed here via the narrative of “volume”. Fun fact: The volume has actually been lower under the 0.2% tax regime compared to when the 1.2% was in place
Whitelisting dApps will solve the issue of high taxation for the most part.
The answer is actually Yes. Based on what is actually the norm on the Ethereum, whose gas fees mind you make any burn tax here cheap in comparison.
What matters is whether a coin has a community driving activity on chain. LUNA V2 may have some of the best dApps I have ever seen (and Yes they do have very nice dApps. I have to admit) but they are doing far more poorly than many dApps operating on BSC or Ethereum, whose gas fees make our burn tax look meagre(and LUNA V2 does not even have our burn tax), but whose DeFi systems have large and active communities willing to use those dApps.
The same applies to LUNC. We have the community. And a lot of people are willing to stick to Terra Classic because it has the potential to deliver an ROI that LUNAV2 can never deliver, so people will use our chain , even if it is slightly more expensive compared to others in Cosmos.
That is our biggest strength and that is what will allow us to both have a higher burn tax and an active ecosystem.
7 Likes
Considering this further if the vote for 0.8% tax passes, I suggest adjusting the burn tax AnteHandler from 50/50 or whatever it starts at, to 75/25%
This results in a breakdown of the 0.8% to 0.6% burn and 0.2% community pool.
I think this is a great balance. At 0.6% burn we get 3x burns bringing our daily burns to an average of 150M from 50M.
We also will go from 0.1% community pool funding (on a 50/50 of current 0.2%), to a 0.2% community pool funding rate, which is about 50M per day into the community pool (1.5B per month). This is an excellent funding rate. We can hire more devs with this as the L1 team is only 900M per 3 months (300M per month).
The last step that will be needed is a CAP on the community pool to overflow into the oracle rewards pool, which I have spoken about before. But we can take it one step at a time.
All in all I think a solid raise to the burn tax is a great idea and I fully support this proposal.
4 Likes
Come on @Rex1 . The 1.2% burn tax did not get a chance to show its effectiveness.
How many dApps do we have on the LUNC chain burning enormous amount of tokens at this low 0.2% burn rate?
@vegas perhaps what would help us to make an inform decision on this proposal is that you give an overview of what the 0.8% burn tax based on certain parameters aims to accomplish ex
- Projected amount to burn over a period of time - the effectiveness of the burn rate compared to another rate.
2.The frequency of the burn
The 0.2% has not increased the transaction volume . I honestly believe that if the burn rate is set at “a high value” , it will encourage holding or staking your tokens for a longer period of time.: Stakeholders would feel very confident if the supply is drained more aggressively.
LUNC with this large total supply could benefit from an aggressive burn mechanism. Presently this 0.2% is a band aid that needs to be removed.
8 Likes
I will vote yes!
Increasing the burn tax to 0.8% is a smart move for several reasons. First of all, it’s important to note that we had more volume with a 1.2% burn tax than we currently do with a 0.2% burn tax. This shows that a higher burn tax can be effective in burning more supply and mitigating the over-minting problem.
Furthermore, aggressive burning can help keep holders positive and engaged, as they will see that we are making progress towards our goals. This can have a positive impact on the community and help to build trust and confidence in the project.
In addition, a 0.8% fee is not much compared to the growth potential of Luna Classic. Most users will continue to use our chain, even if it is slightly more expensive than other Cosmos chains, because they see significant value in holding the LUNC token, which has seen large increases in value compared to other coins like LUNA V2.
Overall, increasing the burn tax to 0.8% is a smart move that can have significant benefits for the Luna Classic ecosystem. It’s a small price to pay for the potential growth and value that can be unlocked by this action.
2 Likes
Facepalm 
How can investors be interested if it would involve paying more commissions?
As I read in these answers, the only people who would benefit from it are those who don’t touch their funds and do not delay or move funds, none of them will contribute with the tax, everyone is waiting for someone else to do something and above all for someone to pay the tax.
No one will move LUNC anymore and we will collapse even further down, LUNC volume OnChain will fall down again.
4 Likes
Yes… this needs to be done. To wait for some future development is insane. We can change later if needed. We need new investors and excitement. Those who are against this just want to use LUNC to repeg USTC. There are some of us who arent invested in USTC and would like to see LUNC as a priority.
2 Likes
So we will go to trade on CEX and if all volumes are traded on CEX no one will ever pay the tax.
The only ones who will earn it will be the CEX.
Inside Terra Classic there is no possibility to trade directly on the network, which I can do on all other networks and directly from my DeFi Wallet.
Enough with these changes or we will lose the support of Binance and everyone who matters in the Crypto world.
Before making hasty decisions, let’s think about the consequences and who would really make money from these changes.
4 Likes
Investors benefit because we burn the LUNC supply down faster, and burns help community engagement and price sentiment. Also we can use part of the tax for funding more development. Also most stakers do withdraw rewards on a regular basis, and if they send to CEX to spend they are subject to the on-chain tax, so they do contribute.
The tax needs to be higher, it was a mistake to drop the 1.2% after 3 weeks. They said the 1.2% killed the chain back then, but the promised volumes did not appear with the 0.2%. It’s time for the LUNC community to correct its mistake. This tax raise should happen and we need time for people to adjust to it, not 3 weeks! 3 months is a reasonable time before reviewing the 0.8% (if this proposal passes).
3 Likes
No… so ridiculous
3 Likes
I suggest removing the burn tax AnteHandler.
Its a pure Mint/Theft of others people donated money
8% Burn tax just like sales tax. 3% allocated to devs for future development. Every time you buy something you pay sales tax. Same with LUNC, you buy it because you like it. At the same time supporting LUNC Burns and the developers. We don’t have to mint but just focus on burns. 3% to the devs would help future progress. While eliminating Trillions in circulating supply. It’s worth discussing and the community can agree if it does nor work we can eliminate it. If it works, we can agree to stop burns at a certain point.1 Trillion or less.
There is no minting as it’s directly coming from the on-chain tax. All manual burns are unaffected. It is a standard tax for cost of transactions to fund our chain and to help burning, it’s not stealing.
We as a community can impose reasonable transaction costs as part of sending and receiving LUNC to self-fund our chain, just as other blockchains do. This is common practice.
1 Like
You do mention trading on a DeFi wallet, as highlighted earlier, dApps will be exempt from the burn tax. It will not become more expensive to trade on chain.
DEXES for Terra Classic exist. Ever heard of Astroport, Terraswap and the upcoming Terraport?
Unlike in October when the 1.2% went live, we now also have IBC channels . There is more room for improvement in this area but I presume once the RS infrastructure is in place, we can work on this especially with regards to the availability of other coins as tokens on our chain
There is data on how the 1.2% impacted the chain as well as the 0.2% The top holders did not move their coins regardless of the tax. In most cases, they staked and forgot about it . Staked coins are coins removed from circulation , so that actually helps in keeping our price stable, albeit on a temporary basis.
1 Like
I SUPPORT the proposal to increase the burn tax from 0.2% to 0.8%. The proposal offers a clear rationale for the increase, including addressing the problem of not burning enough supply with the current tax in place and responding to community demands for a higher tax. The proposal also takes into account concerns about the tax’s impact on Dapps and CEXs, and suggests that most Dapps are able to function with a tax rate in place. The proposed change will stay in place for at least three months and will be revisited if necessary. Overall, the proposal offers a simple and effective solution to address a critical issue facing the chain, which is the total supply.
6 Likes