I support this. Even 1.2% burn tax was ok, it could be gained back in staking rewards in a couple of weeks. With 1.2% burn tax lunc was targeted to 10 billion lunc circulation in 20-25 years, with current burn tax it is not in our lifetime.
Do you see dApps being developed? Maybe some, but not enough. Do you see repeg in the future? I doubt.
Preach brother 
It looks as though a lot of people are voting No because they follow the storyline their âMasterâ Decepticon fed them. That same person has now parted ways from LUNC and is hand in hand with the LUNA club. The second Decepticon master fed them the lie that reducing Tax will increase our chain volume and weâll end up burning more LUNC; oh well weâve been burning 1/5 of our normal rate since then and surprise surprise NO VOLUME INCREASE. What a revelationâŚnot that they would care to admit 
Not sure what youâre referring to, if you want a progress update as to what the 150k is buying us and/or TR is doing with them you should be in here
Development costs money and we need to keep reducing the supply to attract more liquidity with the deflationary coin storyline for nowâŚ
imagine such situation, ustc is repegged to 1$. Will we have more new lunc investors or less? Even with this lunc prize. More lunc investors = more on chain transactions = more burns
Sorry but I still dont see your point regarding that burning lunc is better that burning ustcâŚ
You can re-peg it to 1$, 10$ or 100$, that number is only fictional until you prove you can maintain the peg to the otherwise stablecoin. Itâs all about being STABLE and doing a re-peg on the current LUNC price to $1 is like making money from thin air.
I am in favor of the Zaradar unidirectional peg (not to $1 but equivalent to $1) approach for the time being but that doesnât look like itâs getting any tractionâŚso in the meantime we need the tried and tested method of reducing the hyperinflated supply of LUNC which is the TAX.
Thatâs because I didnât make any point about this
LUNC is the second pair in the Terra seigniorage machine that got hyperinflated when the 1$ peg failed. To restore the system you need to reverse the process, hence reducing the LUNC hyperinflated supplyâŚ
Increasing taxes on the community (the little guys and the businesses using money for transactions) to fix inflation (aka printing of too much cash) is the same kind of stupid the governments of the world do. And look at how much the average tax payer gets screwed IRL?
My 2 cents.
Not everything is about CZ and BinanceâŚ
Have you ever paid tax? I donât know about you, but in my country we pay up to 45% income tax and 43% capital gains tax.
Having a 0.8-1.5% tax on transactions is nothing, especially since we should be burning and funding our chain with the tax. Tax is common on credit cards and other payment services. A reasonable tax is very suitable for LUNC for our needs.
Everybody knows that.
I assume you are a big dapps developer moving around daily 1bil LUNC and increasing the burn tax from 0.2% to 0.8% greatly affects your revenue.
Reducing the burn tax rate from 1.2% to 0.2% in less than a month did absolutely nothing (except of lowering the price of LUNC) in terms of transactions increase. I still remember some charts provided by some people showing huge volumes to come due to tax reductionâŚ
looks like this proposal voting doesnât go as expectedâŚam afraid it might be another lesson the community has to learn the hard way!
Does anyone still remember the one setting/increasing the seigniorage flag we tried to stop which end up causing Binance to pull the plug in the burns?
(âŚhistory is destined to repeat itself, weâll pick this up again in 3-6 months)
voting is going as expected, maybe talk to people outside of the burntax bubble
DYOR - Hint: The question to ask is:
Did the reduction of the tax bracket from 1.2% to 0.2% bring the advertised results?
Then you will know if itâs a burntax bubble or simply people doing their own researchâŚ
Original 0.2% tax reference posts:
They are whitelisted for the exact reason not to worry about these changes.
A lot of people just dont understand that the tax if left only ON chain is just irrelevant, this has been discussed countless times but i will just throw this in.
The volume did not drop because of the tax , it dropped because the initial hype was over. Everyone was expecting the tax to be applied ON and OFF chain and since it wasnt , most of the moon guys made some profit and left.
This is the current estimate for the burn target of 10b, even if you increase the Tax 10x, with the current on chain volume it would still be long long time before we see any significant effects (keep in mind that volume keeps declining).
In my opinion there are 3 ways this can be achieved.
Apply a smaller tax of lets say 0.02% for both ON and OFF chain burns ( will need the agreement of all the exchanges)
Enough utility to increase the on chain activity exponentially.
3.Buyback and burn from investors/projects ( What binance is doing).
What would be better, 0.8% from $100k or 0.02% from $104m?
Also Vegas might have done wrong but the guy has done a lot for the chain, he deserves some credit.
Just my opinion.
Iâd rather get stable consistent burns every day even if the projected time for completing on-chain burns is 50-75 years (it could be a lot quicker with higher volumes from having sustainable price rise), then wait longer for the fabled utility which seems more like an incomprehensible amorphous blob at this point incapable of proper definition or timeframes. At least we can calculate how long an on-chain burn takes. How long are we going to wait on 0.2% for utility with tiny burns and no funding? Weâve been waiting on 0.2% for how long and itâs not delivering on its promises. Everyone gave the 1.2% tax 3 weeks but give the 0.2% utility argument months with poor performance?
We should raise the tax and get serious about burns and funding the chain (which brings utility), and then push for off-chain adoption like we did in the beginning when we had the 1.2% which resulted in securing Binanceâs support.
I think the community would give up of burning and leave LUNC as it is.
The attractive of LUNC is the easy and fast way to transfer assets. The burning tax keep more people away from lunc
Exactly my point, what makes the volume? What is the point on moving coins on chain ? The only volume currently is the people who stake/withdrawal rewards , that is the reason the price and volume is declining, it has nothing to do with the % burn tax, just keep in mind that if you have $100,000 staked currently, you make ~$2k a month in rewards, the moment the rewards pool is empty, the whales will undelegate and sell their holdings and if we dont have enough utility by then, the chain will be done or we will have such a low price that the burning is going to be very easy.
The projection is 75 years now, it used to be 20 years a couple of months ago, in 2 months time it might be 150 years. The only thing keeping the price somewhat stable currently is the binance burns, they almost even out the oracle rewards , if they stopped the burns, there would be about ~400m coins in rewards back in the circulating supply daily.
A lot of people might not want to hear this but as always im trying to be realistic and thatâs just my opinion.
@TheBulgarian Thatâs why with a tax raise we can direct extra funding from the community pool after a CAP straight to the oracle rewards pool. Funding staking rewards is critical for LUNC long term. A tax up to 1.5% with a 75/25% split letâs us burn, fund the chain and fund the oracle pool. Thatâs what Iâm pushing for and is my plan explained in my validator roadmap. A 0.8% would be a great start.
(Food for thought)
Typically commercial bank transfers charge you circa 5%, so paying 2.4% on a P2P transfer is still a lot cheaper.
âŚwould be nice if there is a way to buy LUNC using our Community Pool UST bag every 6 months (i.e. when >1M UST) and use a spending proposal to redirect the funds to the BURN address! We hardly touch that anywayâŚ
[Apologies for digressing on the subject of the post. I still would prefer a stable, higher than itâs now, on-chain burn rate but that doesnât mean we should stop looking for alternative methods]
