Simple economics here. The more you tax an activity the less people engage in that activity. .2% or 1.2% makes no difference without utility and people using the coin.
1 Like
You are contradicting yourself:
The more you tax an activity the less people engage in that activity.
Correct
.2% or 1.2% makes no difference without utility and people using the coin.
Wrong, it will very likely purge the remaining little activity we have at the moment due to your first statement.
Dear, you absolutely do not understand the psychology of either an investor or a speculator. It doesnât matter what the tax is, the potential is important. The opportunity to make a profit. History shows that with a 1.2% tax, investors saw this potential and bought the coin. When the tax was reduced, the potential disappeared. Sales have started
3 Likes
It seems that we will need to repeat this for like the what time now??
AGAIN!
On-chain utility will be whitelisted!
As @dfunk outlined in his whitelisting proposal, dApp activity will be by default exempt from the burn tax
The 0.8% will have to go hand in hand with dfunkâs proposal, which is what I have proposed to Vegas as well. In short, on-chain activity will NOT be affected by the burn tax!
In fact, the opposite will be true.
An increase in the burn tax from 0.2% to 0.8% may pressure CEXes that have so far not indicated that they want to be whitelisted to request being whitelisted in exchange for burns as they will be paying 0.8% to access their cold wallets while Binance is paying zero.
That difference in tax may have have them approaching the community for whitelisting ,which we can agree to in exchange for the burning of fees.(There is a particular CEX with a very large cold wallet on chain I have in mind).
In addition to that. As proposed with the burn tax split, an 80/20 split would mean that around 0.15% of the burn tax would go to the Community pool. Essentially, the Community Pool would get around an extra 300-500 million LUNC per month(as well as USTC and the other stablecoins) .
To put it simply, the burn tax increase can help us fund L2 projects, not just L1 developments which will be funded by the increase in the gas fee we passed recently.
I honestly do not see any downside of the burn tax rising to 0.8% if dApps are exempt from the tax because the argument that the tax will end utility/ activity will not apply.
5 Likes
Stop the burn tax increase talk and search for other effectively solutions to bring back the activity, volume to on chain by dapp, rebag etcâŚ
1 Like
Lol!!and how do you expect we will fund on-chain activity?
On-chain activity by dApps does not magically appear from nowhere, in many instances ,it has to be incentivised. We already have kept one dApp on hold for months, as I have highlighted earlier.
If you look at pre-crash props, you will find that TFL was giving millions to developers and dApps to build on chain.
Do you have any alternative to the burn tax to funding such activities ? Because the gas fee can barely cover L1 upgrades.
We need to increase burns(otherwise people lose interest) and we need to fund L2 projects(which the 0.8% burn tax can help in doing?
We are interested in an alternative to this if you have one.
3 Likes
As I know itâs a burn tax so itâs for burn purpose only. btw LunC isnât a meme coin plus there are many dapps coming soon on chain DYOR.
First and foremost, we are not a meme coin.
Second of all, the 0.2% burn tax is already going to be split in order to fund the community pool. That proposal passed a few days ago.
Thirdly, the dApps will not invest that much in a chain that is not incentivizing them. Just look at how inactive Astroport Classic is.
We already have dApps like Eris Protocol that returned to the chain. We have failed to incentivize them for months now, which is why unsurprisingly, they are focusing on LUNA V2 where they are receiving plenty of support.
Apparently the one who is supposed to be DYOR here is you.
The 0.8% burn tax, will help provide the funds that will attract dApps to build on chain. That btw is how it worked pre-crash. Again, please look at past proposals and you will find the likes of Polygon and Evmos developers getting 10 million and 8 million UST to build on chain.
Now where do you expect we can get the funds for similar initiatives???
No one is doing anything for free these days on Terra Classic.
So we do need a reliable and sustainable funding source.
As long as dApps are exempt from the burn tax meaning utility will not be affected by it , the burn triples in terms of rate and we get an extra 300-500 million LUNC to fund L2 development, then why not?
4 Likes
This is no sense, volumes will down, peoples will keep lunc/ustc in exchanges.
Better support Put 100%-tax for LFG wallets (Put 100%-tax for LFG wallets) 2, @Vegas
1 Like
we should route the burn tax to buy and burn ustc it will have greater effect because you actually have to buy the ustc first. Sound money USTC soft peg
1 Like
Or we could add another tax on staking rewards and buy ustc with it.
But NO⌠if we stakers are hit with even small tax we will stop staking and world will burn.
3 Likes
Was proposed before and failed to pass. Some big validators oppose it and has 0 chance of passing. Sadly.
We should find a way to persuade other exchanges to do what binance does instead , the burn tax will not reduce the supply to levels most people hope for, whales would be happy to keep holding and hoarding rewards while other people burn their money , also in order to get parity with V2 and make apps easily compatible we would need to remove the tax overall.
Binance has burned twice the amount the burn tax has burned from the beginning. (and thats just from 0.1% fees on part of the volume)
The only way we would reach the desired supply reduction is with buyback and burn via utility or if a really small burn tax is applied , lets say 0.02% but its applied both ON and OFF chain so the volume does the rest.
Thats just my opinion but if you watch @DJTrev 's recent AMAâs with the L1 team members, it seems like they share the same vision.
What ecosystem was broken??? Somebody decided that 2 weeks was enough to make an analysis and promised amazing volumes and apps if the tax is lowered to 0.2%. Right now itâs even worst than before in terms of volumes. Everybody is talking about a potential issue IF super mega amazing dapps MIGHT come to lunc but so far lunc is falling slowly into oblivion because it fails to attract investors.
Many people, including myself got attracted by the deflationary idea, the 1.2% burning rate and yet, lately we saw mostly minting back, deception and betraying the most important supporter (I still canât figure it out how a rational human could think that minting back 50% of Binanceâs burns would be a good idea).
When the proposal 10983 passed, I sold half of my lunc and I regret I didnât get out completely.
5 Likes
it did not change after the stupid decrease to 0,2% ffs
3 Likes
Tbf the tax is getting pretty irrelevant, as a means of burning, given the amount of exemptions being carved out.
We have the Binance exemption and no doubt soon the smart contract exemptions.
Youâre basically penalising users from using the chain, theyâre better off keeping their tokens on the CEX they buy it on.
If it wasnât for the funding aspect (which I believe should be increased to 75/25 split as proposed) the tax is largely punitive to the chain rather than supportive.
Even at 0.8% itâll take longer than my life time to burn through the supply and thereâs literally 0 uptake from CEXâs to implement off chain.
2 Likes
Considering the amount of Binance contributions to burns, taking their internal wallets off of taxation is overall a very good deal. Taking that as an argument for âthus the tax is irrelevantâ doesnt really work. But yes, burns are slow (ofc they are, we cannot make money out of nothing, but if im not mistaken we burned roughly 0.6% of peak supply at the moment).
Given the current crypto market situation we should avoid crazy stunts and rather try to demonstrate stability.
5 Likes
What a pity, someone just wasted 1M LUNC to raise a proposal to increase the tax to 1.2% but did so as a text proposal rather than a parameter proposal with the relevant coding, as should be. Even if it passes it doesnât mean/enforce anythingâŚ
1 Like
It is props like these that do a disservice to those trying to raise the burn tax in a way that is beneficial to everyone.
Investors will not care about tax and commission if they expect the price will increase.
The price increase will bring more investors. This will increase the value of the whole chain. when the value of the chain increases. The community will have a big room to go around. This is just like bitcoin, It is scarcity to create value.
Let increase tax rate to 1.5% to create reverse spiral death
After the value increases, we can just copy the algorithm of FXS coin. FXS coin survived at luna crush. Their algorithm for stable coins has been proven reasonable and robust.
Lunc have much bigger users than fxs coin, I think Lunc will win.
4 Likes