Refactor Burn AnteHandler and deprecate Seigniorage Reward Policy

I think you don’t get the point. People don’t want REMINT. A lot of damage was done already to the point that Binance said more or less WTF are you doing guys. Lunc community has 4 mil USD, use thise one for developments, if you need additional funds after you deplete thise funds you can put a seigniorage on staking rewards. Binance, for instance, lost money related to trading fees to help the community but the community itself doesn’t want to do any sacrifices. Decreasing the lunc oversupply must be the main focus…


I have plotted the suggested changes along with the “as is” and “default proposal” specs in a diagram.
I hope it will come in handy and help simplify things:


I am all for this.

@JESUSisLORD, @godoal, @Tynos, @Pascal and anyone else who is doing the calculation of how much is going into CP and how much is being burnt, let me explain something to you which is not related to this topic, but it is extremely important for you to understand how much time we are looking at, to bring the current value of 1 LUNC to $0.1 USD, if we continue burning like we are doing currently.

We are looking at about 83 years if we consider only Binance burns and about 42 years if we include the other burn activities as well. If you remove Binance burns completely, then it is more than 100 years. This is to bring the value from whatever it is right now to $ 0.1 USD, if we consider that we are burning about $1.2 million USD worth of LUNC every month, for the next 42 years.

Consider the above, and now tell me whether you want more funding for development, and slightly less for burning, or do you still want it the other way round?

I would implore everyone to think about the above for a moment before replying.


We never said stop burning, but if we don’t fund enough burn dApps (which requires L1 development to take place before developing L2 dApps) as soon as possible, then in the next 2 years, we would have reduced the CP, OP, and any other fund as well (like the multi-sig wallet) to nothing, without the possibility of significant burns after 2 years. Now, reduce this timeline to say, 6 months, if we are funding a few more projects - a wallet could cost $ 150k USD, but a dApp could cost us $ 1 million also in one go. Complete L1 development will cost us (according to my calculations) about $ 2.5 million USD. This is just L1 for the next 1 year. Now, consider 5 x dApps, at a million dollars each. That adds up quickly, doesn’t it?

@JESUSisLORD your idea is to increase the burn tax but developers will not agree with that, since dApps do a lot of transactions continually, which increases tax liability the moment even 0.1% is increased.

@godoal I have gone through your idea which is really good. Prof. Kim is the best person to reply to that since it depends on technical possibilities in code.

@ek826 can you stop with the greed ? Now you came up with another scheme to get 50% funds to community pool, you are bypassing the latest passed prop #11111. Since there’s way to contribute to the CP without reminting, according to this proposal, that’s good but why are you still hell bent on the 50-50 tx split? Why can’t you accept that the Community doesn’t want 50% to go to the pool. Just burn the damn coins. 90% should go to the burn wallet and 10% to CP. Why is it so difficult for you nerds to understand?


Because those nerds help us maintain and keep the chain modern. You sound very brave but with someone else’s time and sweat! If you are happy to work for FREE please go ahead and godspeed, the world DOES NOT work that way in real life when you have to pay for food, family, and living costs.
As @arunadaybasu said on the previous message:

Also @arunadaybasu I am not sure their cost is that big. I base this on the cost breakdown I’ve seen recently in the L1 and Home DEX proposals.

I suspect the bigger question we need to answer before going into percentages is:
How many $ are we (the community) willing to allow for development purposes on a monthly basis?

I have used the value of $100K per month in my calculations. That is derived from the cost breakdown provided by the L1 team here and the assumption that we might want some extra money to allow running one more big dev project at the same time, like the one here [that didn’t pass governance but helps to get the point across].
Maybe It’s too much, I would be interested to hear what you think is more appropriate…

1 Like

The 1.2% was reduced and justified for dapps. But no pivotal dapps appeared, we just greatly slowed the burning. I don’t know how you can budget 5 million dollars a year for dapps that don’t exist. That’s not a good way to do a budget.

Like I said before, if we increased the burn tax to 1.2%, and 90% was burned, 10% to community pool it would bring $1.46M per year at current price and current volume. This is enough for base L1 work. We need to focus on the basics first. Blockchain upgrades, parity with LUNA and good high quality consistent burning by us ON-CHAIN. The next step after this is to apply pressure on exchanges to adopt the 1.2% on buy/sells (or 0.6% buy 0.6% sell) off-chain.

Whitelist their internal wallets of the big exchanges so they aren’t hit by the tax for internal transfers, and do a big burn campaign both asking them and Binance to even increase their burns. By us having a good on-chain burn we have more credibility in asking the exchanges to burn. If we don’t even burn properly we can say nothing to them.

Burns bring hype, new investors and price momentum. It’s very easy for price to 3x (we recently went 6x). If price 3x we would be bringing in $4.3M in the community pool each year. If we went 6x to the recent high that’s $8.58 M per year (that’s at current volume 20 billion daily, it could be way higher). That’s a good amount for our needs right now the 90/10 split with 1.2% for CP funding.

We also have the $2.2M in the LUNC wallet which is in the process of being released to the community pool, we don’t have an emergency need for funding.

We’ve had months now to trying the strategy of low tax 0.2% hoping it would increase volume, and waiting for mystery dapps that haven’t been created yet. This is a poor strategy which has not worked, the price has crashed continually and on-chain burns went way down. This is not the answer. We need to focus on burning now.


You sound like someone who can’t think for himself. I am sure You will eat shit if Ed/Zaradar told you to. Listen, LUNC without significant burns is a Shiitcoin. It’s SHIB v2. These “smart nerds” are securing their monthly salary for years, from you and me in the name of “building”. Can’t you see, it will take LUNC 5 years to killl a zero and these Devs won’t bother about getting there fast, as long as they are making 10s of thousands $$ a month by giving the community Hopium that they are “selflessly” working for the chain. Why can’t their new L1 Task force apply for Binance’s new grant program? Binance clearly said that devs working for LUNC can apply for their grant. Instead, they want to take all the money from our broke community pool and make us even more broke. 50-50 Tx split is being greedy. Not helping the community. These nerds’ “genius” proposals made Binance to hold their on-going burn campaign. But yeah, you do you. Keep supporting them blindly.

I believe Ed mentioned in a previous AMA he went out on his own and applied under the grants program for LUNC already, so that’s already been done. It may be better to apply again under the L1 group with TGF, as Binance specifically mentioned it. It has been a real problem that the burn movement has been disrespected. First only giving 3 weeks for the 1.2%, we should have kept pressure on exchanges to adopt it off-chain, then came minting, then 50% mint, now these poor decisions are coming back to the community in terms of price crashes, Binance rebukes.


It also worth mentioning that prop 5234 never mentioned the seigniorage will apply to voluntary burns. We or at least I found out only after implementation. All the discussions were related to on-chain tax.

When prop 10983 was discussed, we were assured that ED will get Binance feedback before any implementation, did you guys heard anything? Only silence after implementation.

So don’t be surprised now when you the level of trust going down the rabbit hole…

This argument might have worked on someone else, but we kicked Zaradar out of the private Discord channel we setup back then to gather all legacy validators and reach an understanding on how we can proceed in restoring governance and unfreezing the chain just because he was too emotional and would derail the process. So NO I don’t follow a certain developer, I (as a singular member of the community) like having many developers that ask the community via Agora for funding based on a submitted proposal which the community deliberates and votes on.

Cannot disagree with that, I was warning people against it and still am against that stupid 50% seigniorage reward policy. But the fact that a proposal that stupid did pass puts the blame on us as well for not making it known to the community and getting involved in the discussion more fiercely with arguments, not insults.

If the tax burn is set to 1.2% and you CAP the CP contribution level to $100K per month = $1.2M per year does it matters if those 1.2M come from a 50/50 or 90/10?
To use your example @JESUSisLORD , using the 1.2M CAP the effective burn rate of a 90/10 split would be 92/8 because the excess $26K (out of the otherwise uncapped $1.46M) LUNC equivalent would be sent to the burn address. The exact same effective burn rate you’ll get using that CAP and the 50/50 split! All the 50/50 is doing is filling the CP portion up to the CAP faster and no more. Everything over and above the $1.2M will be redirected for BURN.

Spot on! We are getting somewhere now. That is why I am trying to focus everyone on the actual problem point we are trying to solve here which is below, everything else is missing the bull mark :wink:

All discussions appear to lead to a singular question we (the community) need to answer before going into percentages. That is:
How many $ are we (the community) willing to allow for development purposes on a monthly basis?


Yes if the CP is capped and excess goes to burns is another workaround.

It however, has two distinct disadvantages:

  1. Poor symbolism. 50/50 just plain sucks. It looks bad. We just voted to overturn a grevious 50% mint proposal and going back to take 50% of burns is just an unpleasant concept. Symbolism is important for investor confidence and 90/10% shows high commitment to burns and thus high confidence. Coupled with removing mints is step 1, we take 2 steps forward for 90/10, and 3 steps with reintroducing the 1.2% tax. The 50/50 feels like one step forward 2 steps back.

  2. It seems that most of the developer types would not support a cap on community pool funds as they have many ideas about $ millions needed for future dapps etc.


Nice train of thoughts. What I was referring to is the “40%” tax that investors may not have an appetite for.

In effect are you saying we should forget the “50/50 hard-code” and use parameter changes whether 50/50 or 90/10 etc,?

Yes you are right the 40% might be too aggressive, but am still allowed to dream :slight_smile:
I don’t mind the hard code tbh because it’s irrelevant when you get to the bottom of it. What matter is all of us decide how many $ we want to be allocated out of the on-chain tax for dev purposes.

Cannot disagree with that really, maybe a 60/40 fixed split is a better middle ground

You are saying that but haven’t honestly seen many serious proposals requesting money from the CP or any particular objection to dev funding collection CAP. I personally don’t like the “blank check” approach where we (the community) perpetually provide a salary to a specific dev team or individual.

At the end of the day, this is a community-owned chain and can have multiple developers and teams of developers. The WHO, L1 Taskforce, TR, TFL, Pepa Pig, or Paw Patrol is irrelevant. What we need to do is make sure we have the funding so that when any developer team or individuals come up with a proposal for the betterment of the chain we can fund them, or not, by voting on their submitted proposal specifications.


es que esa es la solución…no hay que darle más vueltas

We also need to find the oracle pool not just community pool

1 Like

In my opinion the 50/50 was put in place when Binance informed @ek826 that Binance will not support his donations being used for funding the CP. Ed knew from that point that the amount needed to fund devs would need to come from the 0.2% on chain tax. With respect to binance decision to to lower their burn contribution by 50%, I think that came in as surprise and hence the burn amount will be negatively affected by the “50/50”. We must remember the 50/50 was mentioned in @ek826 previous L1 Task force proposal, even before the passing of proposal #11111. Ed was “making certain” the CP would be able to fund the L1 team. That no parameter change, and only a program upgrade could reverse that hard code.

Whether re-minted or “hard-coded” 50/50 ,it will still be 50/50. If 100% of of the tax goes to the burn wallet and you re-mint 50% to the pool what difference does it make if the split was made automatically? This 50/50 came about as a result of Binance discussion with Ed.

Help me understand. I may be wrong?

1 Like

The difference is the non-hardcoded 50/50 (AS IS) also re-mints part of the BURN contributions made by third parties like Binance, CEX, Validators, and Individuals in addition to the on-chain tx TAX collection. While the hard-coded 50/50 (Default Proposal) is only applied, according to this proposal (if it passes), only on the on-chain tx TAX collections.

Thanks for the explanation. It would appear that everyone was okay with the “AS IS” . Couldn’t the issue have been resolved with the addition of a “voluntary burn wallet address”?

A lot of us were not happy with it tbh, but the proposal passed under my radar (to speak for myself) so shame on me for that.

If you add some semi-realistic fictional numbers to those Burn contributions in the (AS IS) you can clearly see why Binance were not happy and said what they said recently:
Binance Burn = 6B LUNC
Individuals Burn = 0.5B LUNC (let’s pretend we were that good!)
On-Chain Tx TAX Burn = 0.5B LUNC (let’s also pretend that’s how much the 0.2% yield)
Total = 6+0.5+0.5 = 7B LUNC [that would normally be sent ALL for BURN]
With the 50/50 (50 Burn / 50 Segniorage Reward Policy) the chain would mint 3.5B LUNC and put them back in the CP. So the chain itself yield 0.25B for burn and CP and somehow 3.5B made it back to the CP. I can hear someone saying “Thank you daddy Binance and Individuals for your contribution to our community pool”

Yes, but that re-mint caused by those coins not going to the voluntary burn wallet would still poke some people’s eyes…so not so good from an optics point of view