Thanks ek826 for your efforts, i really appreciated your hard work, changing the way of funding the community pool is a good idea, but i think the problem is the percentage, i guess the 90/10 which is recently passed in proposal 11111 will satisfy the appetite of the community in burning the supply and at the same time will be enough to fund the dev.
3 Likes
Well thought out and balanced proposal. We need the 50% from the 0.2% onchain tax to fund developers and projects. Now we just need to find the right projects to make the LUNC chain big again.
Itās not 50% technically. Thatās what Prof. Kim is showing in the calculations - that if we do a 50% of 0.2% burn tax then it is coming to the same figure as 10% RewardPolicy if we consider the other props. In hard money, itās gonna come to the same thing if we do a 50%. Binance has already reduced the burns to 50%. Not 100%.
2 Likes
It is clear that if lunc is not burned a lot, we will never get it to rise in priceā¦ As it is now with 0.2%, we will not get anything in 20 yearsā¦ And even less if it continues to be minted 
the 50/50 is a lot as they say in some comments an 80/20 burns/pool would be fine!! And I think more and more that LUNC is being used to grow LUNA2 and USTC is. Let the community realizeā¦ It will be seen!!
3 Likes
yes Binance will only burn 50% of the spot trading fees because they donāt want the 50% to get reminted. if that prop was not repealed could have been 0% burn from Binance.
No need to say 50% of what ever is the same as etcā¦
The community only wants 10% thatās itā¦ Donāt further confuse them.
You can read the overall responsesā¦
5 Likes
No reminting is great. But the ratio, 90% to be burned vs 10% to be allocated to community please. Just like proposal 11111 stated
4 Likes
Solid NO.
This is a REDO of a 10983 Proposal, which as I warned was a Risk of Binance pulling out of the deal. Now they are sanctioning us just like predicted. At the time TR including @ek826 ensured that Binance would be consulted on this. Validators and stakers were mislead, prop got passed, as I warned there now is a price to pay.
As a reply to this Devs are doubling down on killing the Burn Tax, ignoring its original intent and going with basically the same mechanism as 10983 without the remint in the name only.
You want your equivalent of 0.5 Rewards Policy to fund the development? Then raise the Burn tax to have a meaningful Burn ratio like it should have been kept from the start.
And make it controllable by a governance parameter. No way such an important feature will be left to devs with the need to pay each time to change it.
This is pure centralisation and Alex Forshaws Plan 2nd time around.
This prop is a continuation of total ignorance towards what the majority of LUNC Community actually want to the Burn Tax to do.
You are basically telling us with this proposal that 10983 proposer @CosmosCapybara has fucked up, Binance pulled out and all of us are now supposed to pay the bill - and to pay it double. Once by releasing 907 milllion LUNC for the work and then 50% of each transaction happening on chain!!
Simply mad!
8 Likes
Many people are obsessed with 50:50 ratio of this proposal.
Let me be more intuitive for those who do not understand the mechanisms for this proposal.
Current burn ratio
Binance burn : 60% of total burn => Re-mint 30% of burned
Personal burn include LUNCDAO, Allnodes etc : 10% of total burn => Re-mint 5% of burned
0.2% tax burn : 30% of total burn => Re-mint 15% of burned
Total : 50% Re-mint and send to community pool
After burn ratio
Binance burn : 60% of total burn => No re-mint
Personal burn include LUNCDAO, Allnodes etc : 10% of total burn => No re-mint
0.2% tax burn : 30% of total burn => 15% burn / 15% send to community pool
Total : 0% Re-mint and 15% send to community pool
In conclusion, the actual ratio is 85:15
9 Likes
Since everyone says that 50/50 is too much I would suggest that we connect the percentage to how much we want to have in the community pool as a maximum, when this value is reached the percentage automatically falls back to 10%, a minimum. How much we want to have in the community pool will be decided by voting.
1 Like
I have some questions before.But after Binance announcement,these questions are gone : )
this was his task given by the ones who would rather see Lunc not to succed.
Thanks. Yes, everyone please read this first. Itās NOT 50-50.
1 Like
This proposal then basically is for maintaining the āsame amount of CP fundingā . If we go 50/50, burning coins would take much longer. My take on the "spirit " of proposal #111111 is that it is a repeal of 50/50. Whether voluntary or not 90% should go to burn and 10% to CP.? The initial 1.2% burn tax proposal #4793 was for āburning the whole amountā.
Questions:
- What will happen if tax returns are low? Wouldnāt CP be severely affected.
- When binance stops its voluntary contribution, wouldnāt that mean that burning will significantly be reduced?
- Why cant the ābinance voluntary contributionā be solved the same way as the on-chain tax? I previously in another space asked this question and was told that the algorithm was archaic Now, it seems that it can actually be doneā¦
Solution to Funding DEvs:
It seems that the emphasis on this proposal is to fund the CP . If thatās the case why not take a loan of $1M/$2M from the $65M Oracle pool? This will not affect the rewards to a great extent over the next few years as revealed by @ek826 in his article on the ādiminishing rewards of the oracle poolā .The loan could be repaid with interest from the ā10% incomeā gained from the 0.2%/1.2% tax, that is sent to the CP.
5 Likes
Yes, yes and yes 
Please keep your brain away from proposals in the future
Is this change in the code will be scalable to re-peg ustc in the future? as I know to keep the value of ustc equals to 1USD, we need to burn or remint based on the actual value.
50-50 is too much even if it applies only to on-chain tax. The main goal for LUNC should be decreasing the oversupply. 10% going to the pool should be enough. If I remember correctly there are some 4 mil USD already than can be used for development. Why not to use those money first for development while focusing on maximum burning?
There is already much damage done with reminting/seigniorage.
4 Likes
It feels like there is undue pressure here to accept the 50/50 which the community just voted to reject and instead chose 90/10. If this is put up for a vote without change then unless it passes we lose Binance burns and LUNC crashes. Itās like Devās are issuing an ultimatum, saying accept the 50/50 the community just voted to reject or bye bye Binance and watch your investment crash. It doesnāt seem right. I hope this proposal can be updated, as otherwise itās good. If we kept the 1.2% from the start we would have been a lot better.
6 Likes
I think in the future they will be more ways to burn faster
No with veto ,just burn only if you want pool incerase need repeg after take pool tax or scam