Refactor Burn AnteHandler and deprecate Seigniorage Reward Policy

I would definitely change it so that it doesn’t remint anymore to remove the confusion. But not parameterizing it would not allow the community to set the amount going to the community pool based on market circumstances. So I disagree with that part.

2 Likes

So we are all renegotiating with binance huh. What if they stop the burns? Will we still want 90/10. Know that the code will be hardcoded and cannot be changed. This is forever.

2 Likes

I totally agree with this. Thank you, sir.

I like the direction☝️But how about devs funding? I think it’s best we discussed it now rather than later! We need a clear cut of how our On-chain funds will be redirected.

If we must Pay
We must Allocate.

X.

The 50/50% split will be hard coded, whats the logic for this?

6 Likes

I dont get why people are saying if its hard coded that its forever…If it can be changed the way it was explained by Ed then surely in the future it can be re-adjusted to fine tune…in which case i dont see an issue with the 50/50 split initially to boost the CP and provide for any future works to be afforded. When volume and price increases tweaking can be done to reflect the situation at hand. I would also remind that we still need to be thinking about the oracle rewards pool for the future also but i dont see a problem with this prop as long as its able to be adjusted if needed.

2 Likes

Yes I understood. The tax in play is only the On Chain Burn Tax portion, which is clearly different than burns sent to the burn wallet by Binance, Some generated by utility, generous community members and Validators. The community wants the BT decided on and finally put to rest until we reach the original stated target of 10 Billion Coins. The .2% BT is too low. The majority want the OCBT to be 1.2%. I have suggested a compromise to .7%, on Twitter several times if there are enough community members that are strongly for a .2% BT. However I have seen very few comments on the .2% BT the last several weeks because it has been a failure, other than a few validators whose true intentions are unknown. Better Lunc, Diamond Handz, Allnodes, Crypto King, Classy Crypto, HCC and others have all recently stated support for a higher BT noting that the current BT has not worked, as the ones who originally pushed for it stated it would. BTW, I believe the ones that pushed the lower BT knew that it would fail and may have shorted LUNC for quick gains knowing that the community would initially follow them in adopting the lower BT. With all this information and yes, speculation, we need a BT increase statement because the parameters of what EK has put out would be affected. Let’s do this right and do it once.

3 Likes

Totally agreed with you ek826

90% burn /10% community pool is good. More than 10% is too much. LUNC won’t be this cheap forever. If we had 1.2% on chain burn tax, 10% is 0.12%. Assuming an average daily current volume of 20 billion on-chain, this would be 240,000,000 LUNC per day (216,000,000 burned and 24,000,000 community pool). 24,000,000 LUNC right now at $0.000167 is worth $4,008 USD per day or $1,462,920 USD per year which is PLENTY.

Now assume LUNC price goes up only 3x (very easy to do) and that same 24 million per day (assuming volume is not also way up) to community pool is $12,024 per day or $4,388,760 per year to the community pool.

This is absolutely PLENTY. 50/50 is WAY TOO MUCH (it would be $7.3M per year at current price with 1.2% or $21.9M per year if LUNC 3x price). 90/10 is good and what the community just approved with 11111. This proposal is not factoring in changes to the burn rate and price increases in LUNC.

12 Likes

My apologies, your post made total sense. My comment was directed at another user, i just clicked the wrong post to reply to.

What would happen with the Community Pool if the tax burn stops burning when the cap is reached?

Its either a prop that would allow a portion of staking rewards sent to community pool. Or just like bitcoin, miner will get rewards for transactions when BTC reached max supply of 21b.

Everything this is happening because of you. What happened of your proposal just repealed within one month. And binance warned us for withdrawing their support. How silly you are to destroy the whole lunc chain ? . Please in future don’t bring any stupid proposal by your stupid mind. @CosmosCapybara

7 Likes

I too would like to see a higher burn tax and have said so many times. I’d happily give up some of my stalking rewards if the whole community would do the same.

5 Likes

Edward Kim I think you will Nurse LUNC like it’s your baby! I think you already feel it’s your baby on some level so that’s good! :slight_smile: I think you’re a good nurse for this one! Adopted Yeah! hehe :slight_smile: I think you need to be paid as suggested the other day too of course! Block Chain Baby here you go! :slight_smile:

My input is this. Raise Burn Tax to 1.2%
LUNC Price I am quite certain will Rise
90% Burn
10% Community Pool
0% Reminted

50/50 I believe is too much going to Community Pool > CONSIDERING LUNC PRICE INCREASE, COMBINED with the Revolving Suggestion of the BURN RATE INCREASE to 1.2%

To me, Proposal 11111 is great on the 10% Part. Again I and others suggest to increase the Burn Tax to 1.2% and your concern of the community pool I think is solved.

5 Likes

This is a well thought out solution. i think if people take time to read it through they will come to agree with it. people please be realistic there is no way onchain volume will ever burn enough tokens without needing cp funding and further development of the layer 1 providing a solid foundation for layer 2 projects to come onto chain. i just see burns burns burns , we are all for buring supply but need to get props like this passed so we can continue building .

2 Likes

@ek826 I think you will need to do an AMA to explain this cause most people are thinking the RewardPolicy is being removed.

For everyone else, we are not removing it. We are essentially changing the way 50% was going to CP. Earlier it was being re-minted. Now it will be sent directly from tax.

We are going back to 10%. So it will become 10% of the tax. And obviously, if we are making it 10% of tax, we don’t need the RewardPolicy after that, so it will be removed - 0.0.

Prof. Kim had explained to us that the RewardPolicy was never meant for this purpose. It was a quick hack to remint funds to CP. So it will be removed now.

1 Like

“For everyone else, we are not removing it. We are essentially changing the way 50% was going to CP. Earlier it was being re-minted. Now it will be sent directly from tax.”

That confusing. Because youre saying the above means you are fooling everyone else. When prop 11111 successfully repealed the 50% now your trying to sneak a 50% instead of reminting from burn tax. It goes directly to CP instead. Again, the community voted for 10% not 50/50.

2 Likes

But binance is supporting for bulid on lunc chain. Then why need 50% . 10% is not enough for cp ? @ek826 or 70% burn or 30 % cp it is also good. Why you chose 50:50 ratio @ek826 please clarify sir ?

3 Likes

I Agree to a 50-50 Split, as this way we don’t end up refilling the same amount and move side ways.
The Current Mechanism nah has a flaw that we end up giving back what we earned together.

As 50% burns the rest 50% is given back, which when traded again will have a similar 50-50 Split much better than Remint and burn.