You can’t promise anything, just get money from the community, still NO WITH VETO.
2 Likes
This is not Twitter to be restricted to 250 characters and please leave politics out of this.
You have enough character allowance to constructively contribute to this discussion by creating a case with arguments as to why you think this proposal is not good for us to pursue.
2 Likes
Last time TR proposal, we, as a owners of the blockchain, lost $150.000 for nothing, so STILL NO WITH VETO, which is for many people like me isn’t about politics, it’s about not beign robbed again and for the same guy/guys.
4 Likes
Obviously, you have not kept in touch with what is being discussed on that proposals (you’re referring to) post because you would see there is a progress update proving that TR is still delivering what they said they would.
Fyi, the official proposal post is here so please bug them there (I do that as well) for updates and details regarding their deliverables so all of us benefit from it!
1 Like
Yes, to this proposal
3 Likes
I think 0.8% is too high but 0.4% would be fine. 2X from now, half of what you’re proposing (it would probably help the community to accept it), 4X is a lot. And we must keep in mind to stay competitive for possible coming utilities.
0.36% burns, 0.04 % to the community pool (according to V 1.1.0 proposal but rate can be modified in the future to fund it a bit more)
1.8X current burns, 20% of previous burns into the community pool
It is OK for me.
2 Likes
I really really don’t get it why this chain can’t have similar burning mechanism ad ETH or BNB chains have. Look how good they are doing!!!
Until now, I haven’t read a logical constructive reply on tha question.
Keep 0.2% as it is and introduce new tax.
Thanks
If you guys have not followed @DJTrev on youtube and are serious about Lunc, you should. This is Zaradar’s take on the tax, which i also agree with. If we continue to change the tax every month or two we will become the next meme coin and no institution/big project is going to take us seriously . The goal should be to increase the on chain volume and buyback and burn IMO.
Just to be clarify, i did vote NO for the 1.2% —> 0.2% proposal but it did pass and now we are here so we might as well make the best of it
As always, just my opinion. .
4 Likes
I dont see binance as a project, more like a “partner”. Your example is on spot, why would i use the dex if i have to pay 0.8% on every trade and on binance its either no fee or 0.1%? If i make 5 trades today x0.8% thats a 4% loss just from trading. ( I am not a day trader but im pretty sure thats how it works)
7 Likes
Burntax Boys will never understand this
4 Likes
Binance is not everywhere. For example LUNC is not on Binance. US.
What you are mentioning applies to a small percentage of people. DEXes are not really used that much except by those on-chain already.
For example ,we use Astroport, TFM and Terraswap to swap LUNC and USTC on chain. Such activity is mainly driven by those already on chain and are swapping USTC regards for LUNC.
Also
Nearly everyone who has staked on-chain bought their coins on an exchange then moved their coins to their wallets, meaning they did not avoid the 1.2% when it was there or the 0.2% that is there now.
However, the 1.2% did not matter because the returns of a week or so, depending on your bag, covered the fees of moving the coins on chain.
Very few people buy from a DEX then move their coins to their wallet. The exception being the Osmosis Frontier instance but that was because there was an arbitrage opportunity.
DEXes survive through arbitrage and by offering LPs with high APRs compared to staking and high APRs on superfluid staking. A LOT of DEXes have fees MUCH higher than the 0.8% burn tax mainly due to slippage.
Like half the coins on Pancake Swap have slippages exceeding 10 percent during peak periods, especially BSC coins ,imposing a penalty far far higher than a 0.8% tax. So I do not see this as a major issue if the likes of Uniswap and Pancake Swap are able to thrive in such an environment.
If a DEX is offering high APR on locked liquidity, the 0.8% burn tax will not be that big of a factor because the returns will more than cover the fee. That is true for DEXes on other chains. Otherwise there would be ZERO DEXes handling Ethereum based coins given how expensive it is to move anything in the Ether.
5 Likes
I just dont see the upside on taxing the small volume we have to death. it will not make a dent in the supply.
2 Likes
…and yet there was more hype about the coin when everyone was burning from their personal wallets and a systemic tax were to be put in place (back when it was set to 1.2%) than since we reduced tax to 0.2% with the hope of volume increase.
You would find LUNC articles talking about this all over the place, articles that attract new LUNC supporters.
When was the last time you read a positive article about LUNC and the development work that’s been going on in it recently; the work done by L1/TR is not insignificant and yet the people writing articles about it don’t capture the wider audience attention and therefore authors stop talking about us. Simply put we need to make noise via marketing in the media world to keep the momentum going. For that, we need to make marketing decisions that make positive noise and consequently have positive effects on the coins supply/mcap.
As positive marketing, think about the situation we are in with Binance. Whenever they burn news of it is all over the place, whenever we even discuss enabling their burning again news spread like wildfire. Yet we are NOT doing our best to push the narrative to its’ extreme…this proposal will add 1.12B(ish) burned coins weekly to that pile…we should turn this into a competition with Binance (how’s that for marketing).
If nothing else, will boost our CP funds to support further development and will buy us time until the bidirectional (Ziggy)/unidirectional (Zaradar) swaps are enabled and with that a somewhat natural supply reduction without a need for taxed burns.
8 Likes
If community can’t do more to reduce supply I really don’t see price of Lunc and Ust to stabilise. Without price increase for both CP will be empty by Q4 regardless how much more Lunc and Ustc fly there from tax. I doubt any dev will work for free.
We need to find way to reduce suppply. There is to much supply hitting the market from those who stake.
Put a 10% tax on Lunc rewards and 100% tax on stables. This way we can sort this out in a year. We who stake already own tons of Lunc and Ustc. If price goes up it is a win win situation.
1 Like
To death.
We had the 1.2% active for around 3 weeks. Yes, we did not burn the 1-2 billion we expected at that time, mainly because a lot of CEXes introduced sweep fees on their end that doubled the tax that was being applied to coins being moved on chain. And even with such negative action by CEXes, (this was later removed and in fact prior to the voting of the tax to 0.2%, the volume was slowly rising) but the chain did not collapse .
We still burned between 200 -400 million a day, less than we expected, but much higher than the 20 -50 million we burn currently .
Over time, it WILL add up.
People ignore that Shib had the same slow burn for a long time. It added up over time and people woke up one day and realised, “wait, this coin has burnt trillions”.
Once we have burned over 100 billion and the amount is being tracked, it will help bring people to the chain.
Plus, I am not just looking at the burns.
We need more funds in the Community pool specifically for L2 developments. Currently, the CP barely covers L1 development. We have so many pending proposals that need to be incentivized that the full 0.2% of the burn tax would be needed to cover those needs.
Because the community has forgotten, let me remind everyone, we passed proposals that facilitate L2 and interchain development.
NONE of those proposals have been implemented due to lack of funds and because the price remains low so we need a lot of LUNC to pay for this. The burn tax split presents the best option for covering L2 development without touching the amount we are currently getting from the gas fees that is needed for L1 development .
Under the current plan, a full 0.2% of the 0.8% (basically what we are burning on a daily basis right now) will go to the Community Pool while 0.6% will still be burnt, 3 times what we are burning now. There will be enough funds for L1 development from the gas fees as well as enough funds to build on-chain as the community wants from the new burn tax.
Unless we have a benevolent billionaire, the 0.8 % burn tax presents the best path to do this.
3 Likes
yeah sure it will good luck with your tax
I thought that the right tax for Lunc is 1.2% undisputed because all of us who lose good dollars want Lunc to go to the level we trusted before 05/2022 and now stop playing games and return the 1.2% burning tax that the serious investors of the community who believed in the 1.2% tax and Lunc would have burned at least 15% of the total supply until 01.01.2023 do not disappoint us
5 Likes
Why ?Because you are familiar wth LuncDao FUD ?
Why can’t a tax be imposed on all LUNC sales, including exchanges? Through the code. 1%. Is the community afraid of losing investors? Or the negative reaction of the exchanges? How can this ruin the ecosystem?
In my opinion, this will only improve the investment climate.Firstly, it will significantly increase the burning rate. Which cannot but affect the price. Investors are happy.
Secondly, part of the tax can be used to compensate USTC holders affected by the collapse, which cannot but affect their reputation. And, as a result, on the price. Investors are happy. The binding is approaching.
As for the exchanges. I believe that exchanges are the largest holders of LUNC, and they will benefit greatly from a reduction in LUNC demand and an increase in its price. And in general, it is very profitable for everyone to pay a tax of 1% in order to then make a profit of 10% and above.
Everyone except those who like arbitrage and scalping. But I would advise them to change the trading style to LUNC, or choose another tool.