Dont lose time with him,is focus is something else.
3 Likes
And there is no ecosystem still, whc can generate like hell of traffic. 1.2% burn was fine. Just some dumbs wants to come in to limelight so crafted a new story and created mess. and every month some dumbs coming with proposals and ideas. ANY IDEA TAKES A TIME TO EVOLVE AND PROPER ANALYSIS NEEDS TO REVISIT IT. BUT BEFORE ANY RESULTS EVERYONE WANTS TO INCREASE THEIR TWITTER FOLLOWERS AND KEEP PUTTING PROPOSALS. Let one proposal inplace and analyze it well. It shoud be discussed with core team develpoer not with common people. If everyone is intelligent and can run a company everyone wil lbecoem CEO? Governance matters but They should comup with better timelines and analysis. Every month system cannot be keep changing according to feelings and rage. There must be some kind of proper system that once proposal implemented it cannot be changed till 3 or 6 month. Every random person comes with a proposal now adays. Where the hell they where when chain was died? It’s the idea of 1.2% and and “HOPE” created pump of 1000%. That is a catalyst for the chain. and belief of a long term investors. any coin can’t keep pumping every single month. PROPOSAL SHOULD HAVE fixed timeline and evaluation mechanism fixed. Before it cannot be changed by any other proposals. Only then we will have better understanding and planned trajectory. @Vegas
3 Likes
LOL
Seriously? 1.2% “destroyed” us….
It was implemented for about a week, price action was great, overall everything was fine… until rumors started to surface about how “1.2% was killing the cain” and we have to lower it ( which brought the volume down ) … that’s when a proposal was put up for 0.2%
Was 2 weeks a enough to determine whether 1.2% was “killing the chain”
Keep in mind burns were 200M-400M a day… until those rumors surfaced
10 Likes
Yes, please.
7 Likes
No meaning of incresing tax.
Our aim should be increse onchain activity to 10X automatically 0.2% become 2%. or 100 times become 20% burn.
4 Likes
Good point. 100 percent agree.
2 Likes
Terraclassic is becoming a circus, everyday a new Drama, and in the last you were the protagonist @Vegas with the TerraRebels and the story of the theft of $150,000 and I don’t understand with what courage you are still here to propose your sh*t and people still follow you. To my country we say “it fits in your A$$ but not in your head”
We are changing the cards on the table month after month, and this story was also making us lose Binance support.
Few merits remain at TerraClassic, first the community, second the speed of transactions and third the very low costs of commissions and fees, with the burn tax too high we lose this last strength.
We are becoming unwilling and we are taking confidence and image, how can we think of attracting investors by raising the tax?
An increase in Burn Tax will only increase offChain volumes and drastically decrease onChain volumes, so everyone will trade on CEXs and no one will pay the tax.
Binance’s Burn is smart and zero cost for traders, and you pay with the fees that people only pay on LUNC pair exchanges.
We need to go back to moving the OnChain volumes that were there before the collapse, and we need so many utilities, dApp and swap directly on the BlockChain.
People are just looking for a way to solve this situation without doing anything and waiting for others to do something or sacrifice something to bring value to LUNC, but that’s not how the world works guys.
So let’s think and evaluate all the pros and cons before changing such important parameters.
Thank you for your attention
1 Like
That is the definition of holders. That will help taking coins from circulation .
1 Like
Akujiro’s shenanigans destroyed the chain, not 1.2℅.
6 Likes
Bring back the 1.2% tax and stop the reminting! People don’t like it then go elsewhere. The only ones you are entertaining right now are day trades taking from potential long term supporters/investors.
5 Likes
Ill all for providing more funds to the community pool and increasing the pace of development.
Less excited about raising the burn tax.
The whole conversation takes all of the oxygen out of the room. The real discussion should be about what are we building and how LUNC can provide real value to people by having in demand apps.
1 Like
A. The burn tax will help provide funds to the Community pool and supplement what we are getting from the gas fee increase
B. As outlined in an earlier discussion. dApps will be exempt from the burn tax. So the burn tax WILL NOT affect development on-chain. The burn tax will not affect MsgExecuteContract, MsgExecute and MsgInstantiateContract transactions. In short, dApps will be whitelisted.
C.Parity will make it possible for dApps on V2 to launch on Classic. An increasingly likely possibility given recent events.
2 Likes
An easy YES from me. No doubt. Thanks
6 Likes
What if there is rather a new tax? @Vegas
Validators have min 5% commision now. Lets put a 50% tax on those 5% for all validators with voting power higher as 3%.
Many of them already had 0% commision so this tax will not hurt them!!
No doubt a No with veto.
8 Likes
No no no no no no no stop this nonsense
5 Likes
After the discovery period (3 months) provided this proposal passes and we don’t see any major issues shall we initiate a bi-annual “Pyro Month” celebration where we increase the tax to 5% for 30 days?
No with veto.
Especially coming from you, you didn’t have enough with $12.000 and walked away from the validators list?
3 Likes
No with veto. A scam do the scam again…
The proposal come from the person who has blocked others easily in Twitter. I don’t think you are ready to listen other voice well.
You have to focus the utility, not the burn tax.
- dApps will be going to be d ead
- transfer volume will be going to decrease; nobody
wants to use Station(or other wallets) with 2.4% loss because of “increasing burn tax”
LUNC is not a meme coin. More give from more burning? It’s just a p onzi scheme.
What do you mean? What do you achieve from this?
and where is the money from CP?
8 Likes