Yessssssss
4 Likes
simple question for community; lunc to 1$ with actual building or get scammed by TR again?
5 Likes
Simple. With burning, starting with this proposalâŚ
3 Likes
I think the absolute maximum would be around 0.4%, the Ideal would be 0.35% any percentage above that will restrict the trading volume drastically.
I think any serious trader or investor understands this very well. If you want this approved, bring a more realistic proposal.
4 Likes
It seems this needs to be repeated again and again.
The increase in the burn tax will not affect volume. We know this because we have actually had lower volume under the 0.2% (save for a few days here and there) than we did under the 1.2%.
Secondly, this will not affect trading volume with regards to dApps as they will be exempt from the tax.
8 Likes
Yes from my side as well, looking forward to vote this one
3 Likes
Raise the taxâŚ? On what? Generally when someone is taxed it is for something like a service or a delivered product⌠LUNC has Nothing⌠After almost a year Lunc still has basically zero use and all some brainiacs have to offer is , Hey letâs raise the burn taxâŚ
Seriously this project is running on borrowed time and the bill will come due soon⌠The tax is useless as you know what on a Boar HogâŚ
LUNC has to have something to exist for OTHER than itâs useless burn taxâŚ
3 Likes
Itâs been known for a long time that 0.2% did not bring that McDonaldâs type of transaction and volume craze to LUNC as advertised. It has also introduced minting and led to Binance cutting down 50% of their support scheme.
We urgently need a way to speed up a burn of the Total Supply and onboard new CeXs to participate in the Buy-Back-And-Burn scheme like Binance does.
Increasing the tax would also aid the Community Pool since there is no more reminting.
4 Likes
please,stop with touching this Burn Tax again and again,do other thing to burn lunc.change Burn Tax again and again will not help at all.no easy way out for this.the easy way to out from this is just do 100% Burn Tax,how about that?
3 Likes
NO WITH VETO,. YOUR FUCKING CLOWN GVE BACK THE 150k THAT YOU STOLE,⌠always talking about tax burn., do you have any other idea in mind?, or are you jst another low IQ that always murmuring about burn tax.
?? what a shit, thats why zaradar and ed LEFT terra rebels the because u are bunch of scammer and hr again scamming again.
7 Likes
I wish the community would distinguish between failure and f.raud.
Failure can be forgiven when he admits to wrong and proved it. And sometimes you have another chance.
F.raud is a different matter. A con man always hangs around stupid people for profit.
Clearly distinguish between f.raud and failure among the remaining 90% of the members, except for the 10% success stories that exist in the cryptocurrency market.
Money is based on trust. The same is true of cryptocurrency. This chain is the fund you are investing in.
If theyâve been proven to be c.rooks, cut ties with them and ignore them. People donât change easily.
4 Likes
No with veto. what about the progress of the $150k community fund, has it run out and are looking to steal it back? hope this chain dies soon.
3 Likes
Fook this NO WITH VETO SCAMMER
3 Likes
1-NO WITH VETO
You have a high level of insolence, you steal money, you come months later, and you think society has forgotten that
4 Likes
No with veto.
Iâd like to see parity happen and not waste our devs time with these stupid nonsense ideas. Once parity is finished then we can talk about what makes sense for the burn tax, and we do so with Dapp groups rather than just throw numbers out. Secondly we need to focus more toward USTC if we really want to benefit Lunc.
5 Likes
Agree with increasing the Burn Tax. The group that believed strongly in reducing the tax had no spirit of compromise and ended up misleading the community as to the volumes that would make up the difference. We went from 1.2% to .2%. This ended up being a brutal decision. What makes a Crypto Community strong is the ability to see both sides and compromise where possible. Always take the high road which is the middle ground. In this case .7%.
Even with the Burn Tax the burn rate is way too low. The LUNC community is a good community. However the community leaders, in large part, and the influencers although well intentioned are not stating the obvious. What makes a community Excellent is the willingness of members to give or support others. Sadly only a very small minority have this spirit of giving and in being realistic in explaining expectations. The simple fact is that LUNC is not going to $1 in the the next 5 years. We simply arenât burning enough. The burn rate must be in the 2 Billion to 2.5 Billion coins per day area at a minimum, but ideally 5 -10 Billion. In order to achieve this we need something sacrificial that would be truly amazing. However I donât know if it would even be possible to make a proposal or proposals to cover all the suggestions below but I will make a borrowed suggestion at the end.
How to Burn 15 Billion+ Per Week:
- Burn 1 Billion from the Oracle Pool weekly. Seriously we âneedâ to make 23% return from an entity that is deep in the hole? Sacrifice, Sacrifice. Increased volumes because we do the right thing may fill the OP back up through gas fees.
- Tax all rewards at 20%. Again whatâs wrong with a 15-20% return on staking?
- Use the Oracle Pool to fund developers and ask Validators to stop funding developers and instead direct all resources to burning. Any withdrawal for development from the Oracle Pool must be matched with a corresponding 5X burn from the Oracle Pool. 4 Billion for developers = 20 Billion Burn.
- Somehow create a weekly Community burn. 33,000 wallets hold 1 Million or more LUNC. Each wallet owner needs to burn 1% of their holdings each week on Monday for 26 weeks. Ask CZ to match our burns in addition to the fee burns. Take a 30 day breather to plot next moves.
Conclusion: This would be a start of something unreal. Theoretically we could seek commitments and create a hold wallet. But being realistic that we are going to have to burn a portion of our bag and make a sacrifice has to be the narrative. Supply is not going to magically disappear. If we all get behind a movement like this we would burn about 25% of the supply with everything else being burned being gravy in the next 6 months. So we all agree to burn 25% what is the price going to be in 6 months? 10X. I believe we would burn a zero and accelerate growth and additional burning. Put another way take a 10 Million LUNC holding at the current price of 0.00017. $1700. Burn 25% that holding is now 7.5 million but with a price of just 0.00034 value is $2550 but with price at 0.0017 value is $12750.
Whatever form a community burn program could possibly evolve into, it is the only way to speed up the burn. By each member of the community burning a small portion of their bag each week and unselfishly giving, they would eventually reap huge rewards!
3 Likes
YES. The average burn has been only 40-50 million per day since 4 weeks ago. Itâs very low, especially after tendermint, IBC, the merge between lunc-luna, cosmos-sdk, CosmWasm, etc have been done. Lowerring the burn tax from 1.20% to 0.20% hasnât increased the on chain volume, and vice versa. We need much more burn to see some nice price action
8 Likes
good proposal, hopefully my bro CZ will support it!
2 Likes
I think its time to put it for vote in terra station, 68%-32% win the âyesâ.
Its important that the people vote in terra station with their luncs because maybe your validator vote ânoâ when you want a âyesâ.
5 Likes
I canât promise that increasing the burning tax will make the coin go to the moon, but by historical records, the chart was looking much better when we had the burn tax in place.
When it was voted to decrease the tax, arguments were made to bring more utility to the chain and increase on-chain traffic, but we didnât see any of that happening. I gave it time to see if it would work, and it now seems clear that it hasnât.
The community is now asking for the tax to be increased, and i donât see any wrong in that, the tax can work with devp made on the chain. We can only try. Regarding the dapps like Dfunk proposed, there seems to be two ways of dealing with the situation of high tax on the dapps: one is to propose to L1 to exclude MsgExecuteContract, MsgExecute, MsgInstantiateContract from the tax itself, or the dapps can propose to be whitelisted instead. Considering these options, it seems unlikely that any harm would be done by increasing the tax. I welcome any constructive comments and feedback on this issue.tks
4 Likes