Because CEX transactions of LUNC happen off-chain and a chain code (that could potentially enforce such policy) can only be applied on on-chain transactions.
To over-simplify things, you can think of CEXes as having a huge excel sheet where all transactions in their domain are recorded there. That way their transactions can be un-taxed and they can impose whatever order limits and order fees they wish. So when you transfer coins to them they give you a pseudo account under which you trade when in fact (in most cases) your coins are in the same LUNC wallet they own/handle along with everyone else’s. The only time CEX coins touch the chain is when users choose to transfer coins between the CEX (from that huge wallet) and the LUNC blockchain.
Yes, for day trading, scalping, and hft; If that is your trading style then we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this proposal and leave it to the vote.
Our current burn tax of 0.2% is not enough to address the problem of over-minting and ensure the long-term sustainability of our chain. We need a larger tax, and we need it now.
The proposed increase of the burn tax from 0.2% to 0.8% is a crucial step that we must take to burn more supply, mitigate the over-minting problem, and satisfy the demands of our community. Our predecessors have tried to decrease the tax to increase on-chain traffic, but it failed to achieve the intended results. The fear that the tax would harm CEXs was also unfounded, as they have adapted well to the tax with only minor issues.
Some members of our community have expressed concerns that the high tax rate would harm Dapps, but evidence suggests that most Dapps are able to function with a tax rate in place, and recent proposals have addressed concerns about the tax’s impact on Dapps and CEXs.
Increasing the burn tax will not only help to burn more supply and mitigate the over-minting problem, but it will also incentivize more CEXs to ask to be whitelisted, as proposed by Ed. This proposal builds on recent suggestions, and the proposed change will stay in place for at least three months to avoid a yo-yo effect.
I support this proposal to increase the burn tax. It is a simple and effective solution to address a critical issue facing our chain, and it will bring more interest and investors to our chain.
We are a community united with one goal in mind, and we have the power to make this change for the betterment of our chain. I understand that this proposal is not the only solution, but it is a crucial step in the right direction. Let us come together and make history by approving this proposal to increase the burn tax to 0.8%.
We should increase the tax but use the Lunc tax to buy and burn ustc that will have more of effect because of smaller market cap of ustc and the fact you have to buy the ustc first what can push up price and bring more attention to ustc
Yes I do; because it pays for people picking up the garbage outside my door, someone to take care of and make sure roads are in proper condition. Services like schooling for my kids, policing, and fire brigade are just a call away when I need them not to mention I am provided through those taxes a health system to cover all my and my family’s emergencies. I would even be willing to pay more taxes to assist my community to protect and expand some of those services like our public health system.
So again, I don’t mind taxes as long as they contribute to the well-being of the community I belong to and I am part of…pretty much the same as the LUNC community.
It’s a pity. We need a sales tax. Staking is a time bomb.
If suddenly society finds a way to cook an omelette without breaking the shell, this mine will explode at the most inopportune moment. History will repeat itself
I agree; swaps need to be enabled sometime soon to replenish the Oracle Pool. Hopefully sooner than later, and hopefully this will be the point where it’s proven we don’t need tax-based burns and phase this method out…
it could be you but i am not
I would like to see and work the system in a reasonable level of transparency, otherwise I would not support it, I would evaluate my personal resource management elsewhere.
Please refrain from using this language towards anybody and especially towards Terra Rebels. I disagree with you, and if you put it to a vote, I would give the money to the Terra Rebels once more.
I like what they accomplished with Rebel Station.
If you use the new Station (which was designed specifically for LUNA 2.0), you will lose a number of options, including the ability to swap USTC->LUNC. Moreover, the LUNC transaction history in the new Station is three months old while it is current in Rebel Station.
Why are you so angry with them? What’s the problem if they produce as promised?
No with Veto. Governance isn’t @Vegas personal engagement farming platform…
When you confront him with concerns and arguments against raising tax, the only thing he’s able to say is “Is so simple, it makes people mad” Ok bro…
stealers