Refactor Burn AnteHandler and deprecate Seigniorage Reward Policy

[VMan_82]

Prof EdK208 has gone to substantial lengths in consolidating the spirit of props #5234 #10983 and #11111 without compromising on future support through Binance voluntary . The refactoring of current burn antehandler so as to deprecate seigniorage RewardPolicy is a welcomed upgrade with a YES vote from me…

[Dmr]

As a community, we do not accept this offer. If this offer passes, I will cancel my lunc investment. Binance and the community want a burn. You want to fill your own pocket. We’ve been taking 3 steps forward and 2 steps back for months. We cannot progress. In fact, we are always in the same place. Binance supports the community. Support the community with your offers, not yourself. Lunch is close. You reduced the Lunc burn by 0.2 and you mentioned that the volume will increase. You said that if the Lunc burn is 0.2, other exchanges will support us. What happened? They didn’t support it. Other exchanges will not support us unless Lunc gains trust.
Answers

1. Stop pressing Lunc supply. Limit the supply. No more supplying. We are in this state because of the supply
2. Bring back the 1.2 burn tax and apply it on the chain. Binance will support us. Binance wants it. Now understand.
3. 1. Let the 2 tax (90%) burn (10%) be given to the community.
4. Do not make unnecessary demands from the community.
5. Do not upvote the community with these offers. Just close and build. After the accident, the investor suffered a lot and still continues to suffer. We started to gain trust with the burns. Don’t lose this trust

[Mpowski]

Unfortunately not it seems. They did not leave it open for the discussion what the %split should be Rabbi. Its stuffing things down our throats at the cost of burn rate. Same as was done since the 0.2% was passed. Making this parameter hard coded is the worst decision since the Alex Forshaw gravy train. Proves that the devs want to treat the rest like plebs that needs to be governed from above. Im trully disgusted with this.

0% decentralisation 100% cronysm.

[Dmr]

As a community, we do not accept this offer. If this offer passes, I will cancel my lunc investment. Binance and the community want a burn. Take your own pocket. Months, we take 3 steps forward and 2 steps back. We cannot progress. Actually, we are always in the same place. Binance communities. Support the community with your offers, not yourself. Lunch is close. You reduced the Lunc burn by 0.2 and you mentioned that the volume will increase. If the Lunc burn is 0.2, you said us positive in other exchanges. What happened? They didn’t support it. Other exchanges will not support us. Answers 1. Stop printing the Lunc supply. Limit supply. No more pressing supply. We are in this state because of the supply 2. 1.2 Re-chaining the burning tax and passing it on the chain. Binance supports us. Binance wants it. Now understand. 3. 1.2 close to 2 tax (90%) (10%) give to the community 4. Do not make unnecessary demands from the community. 5. Do not community vote with these offers. Just close and build. After the accident, the investor suffered a lot and still continues to suffer. We started to gain trust with the burns. Don’t lose this trust

[sg80]

So from what I’ve posted on twitter and will here, my understanding is 1) that 100% of burning by individuals and CEX’s will go directly to decrease the supply where only the portion of the 0.2% tax will be calculated for the burn-remint? Is that correct? If so, I’m in.

2. Although this will be hardcoded to the 0.2% tax, the tax amount can still be voted upon in a proposal to increase or decrease it. Is that right? If so, I’m in.

Although the thorough writeup by @ek826 is wonderful, for a simpleton like myself, a lot of it goes over my head, and I’m sure over the heads of many others. A clear simplified/dumbed down summary would be great.

If the above can be addressed I’d be more comfortable voting on an upcoming proposal.

Thank you for your hard work and please look to unify the community/developers going forward!

[Parias]

Let’s be serious, we will never burn LUNC tokens to 10 billion without investing in new projects that will also burn LUNC. I prefer 50 projects that will burn 50% of the 0.2% tax than just 90% of the 0.2% tax to burn.

[George2365]

Key issue to address is
We need 100% burn wallet. People voluntary burn Lunc is not for reminting it in CP.

Nice to have
RewardPolicy reminting is confusing, it will better send to CP immediate instead of a the end of epoch.

I suggest

1. make burn wallet no longer reminting at the end of epoch
2. Send tax to CP immediate according to RewardPolicy

But if it is too complex, I suggest the alternative is
Create a new burn wallet that does not allow re-minting of the burn amount. we can keep RewardPolicy as is

[godoal]

@Parias

Let’s be serious, we will never burn LUNC tokens to 10 billion without investing in new projects that will also burn LUNC. I prefer 50 projects that will burn 50% of the 0.2% tax than just 90% of the 0.2% tax to burn.

True, however here lies the “chicken and egg paradox”:

• In order to attract 50 good projects that help in the burn effort you need the chain to be maintained and be kept modern.
• In order for the chain to be maintained and kept modern you need L1 developers.
• In order for L1 developers to dedicate their time to this chain’s development (maintenance, modernization) they need to be fed and feed their families, so they need money.
• The only (direct) way we have as a community to collect money in order to provide the funding required to those L1 developers is via the community pool
• The money we currently collect in our CP comes from unsanctioned sources that didn’t agree to it, so we MUST stop this. Also, the chain volume transaction fees are not enough to replenish the CP with enough coins to fund L1.

Therefore instead of EITHER/OR the best approach is to use both, and phase out each one as our chain reaches the maturity volume levels it deserves.

[godoal]

@sg80

1. that 100% of burning by individuals and CEX’s will go directly to decrease the supply

YES

@sg80

where only the portion of the 0.2% tax will be calculated for the burn-remint? Is that correct?

Partly YES in that the proposal suggests that the 0.2% tax from the on-chain volume be split in half. The first half goes to the BURN address and the other half DIRECTLY to the Community Pool, NO REMINT will take place.

@sg80

Although this will be hardcoded to the 0.2% tax, the tax amount can still be voted upon in a proposal to increase or decrease it. Is that right? If so, I’m in.

The tax amount i.e 0.2%, 1.2% can still be set via a proposal. This proposal suggests a hardcoded 50/50 split on the (whatever on-chain %) tax value proceeds as mentioned above.

I would prefer a cap be set in the CP distribution function’s logic so we take only what’s needed in our CP for funding purposes and push any overhead to the BURN address, as described below:

@godoal

To that end, I suggest the following approach/solution/changes:

[arunadaybasu]

There has to be a backup for funding development. If that’s available, then removing the 10-15% completely makes sense. Otherwise we are gonna sit with an empty treasury. Oracle pool can’t be accessed that easily without writing more code, which is why we are working with the CP for now.

[Dannavan_Morrison]

@Dannavan_Morrison

1. Why cant the “binance voluntary contribution” 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 done…

Well ,Binance now says “BURN MY MONEY, DONT SUPPORT DEVS WITH IT”. So my argument is now moot.This makes the case that 50/50 is a bad idea. The community passed proposal #11111, 90/10 to burn the supply of LUNC. We want to BURN COINS AGGRESSIVELY. The investors will just have the dirty end of the stick if 50/50 is passed.

@ek826

Given the passing of this proposal, the RewardPolicy was adjusted to 50%, and this is where it currently is now. As shown above, the 50% split re-minted approximately 200M in a week, without Binance burns. Whether or not this was intentional by the proposer, this amount is approximately equal to the 10% RewardPolicy with Binance burns.

The discussion about 50/50 “being the same as …” , I believe is fallacious based on the fact that the calculation should not be based on projected amount(price of lunc may fall and then 50% will not be the projected amount) .This imo ,is not what we voted for in proposal #11111. A percentage of a variable amount will always change. It’s relative to volume. We want to burn as much as possible when the volume increases. 90/10 is what we voted for, and should not be hard-coded to 50/50. I cannot imagine how @CosmosCapybara could think otherwise. Perhaps , he can help us here.

[godoal]

@George2365

Key issue to address is
We need 100% burn wallet. People voluntary burn Lunc is not for reminting it in CP.

Nice to have
RewardPolicy reminting is confusing, it will better send to CP immediate instead of a the end of epoch.

I suggest

1. make burn wallet no longer reminting at the end of epoch
2. Send tax to CP immediate according to RewardPolicy

But if it is too complex, I suggest the alternative is
Create a new burn wallet that does not allow re-minting of the burn amount. we can keep RewardPolicy as is

This proposal pretty much says it will do exactly what you are suggesting by re-coding the AnteHandler and will remove the Seigniorage Reward Policy setting from being used because it causes that nasty remint on all burned coins.

[StopThisMadnees]

No Remint, null! 0!
For CP/Devs founding use gas fee, we can increase it even by x50!

[godoal]

@StopThisMadnees

For CP/Devs founding use gas fee, we can increase it even by x50!

How exactly do you suggest we change the existing distribution parameters to facilitate that?
50% of the gas fees are already going to the Community Pool! That is the preferred method, yes, but we don’t have enough volume to support the chain’s development only by using the gas fees (at present).

[pivo4et]

Here is a solution to fill the public pool without a time limit. It allows you to finance any research and development over time.

Community pool

I suggest that our community create a vote on the use of the community pool. I propose to direct the public pool and all other financial resources to LUNC staking. The public pool will be entirely staked until the end of the token burn period. Funding for any necessary expenses must come from staking rewards. The $4.5 million from Do Kwon’s secret wallet must also be channeled into LUNC’s staking. At current exchange rates, $4.5 million equals approximately 4 billion LUNCs. Right now, stak…

[ek826]

thank you for the break down this is correct.
@Asobs yes, my mistake, rewardpolicy 1.0
@Ramrodthe1st yes, hard coded just means that it would have to be changed by text prop, and then changed in the code via the next upgrade.
@arunadaybasu yea, i think there is just a lot of confusion here.
@Dannavan_Morrison 1. yes, 2. yes, 3. yes, we can and i’m hoping that this prop simplifies all the moving parts. As for the oracle pool loan… maybe? It opens up another can of worms
@godoal the tax rate is an independent parameter change and could be set. the change of the split would have to be a text prop to be implemented in the next code release.
@Alessandro_Nardaggio there would be no re-mint in this proposal. but yes, if the consensus is not to utilize the burn tax for funding the community pool, we can explore other ways. one other way people have be talking about is block rewards via the gas fees.
@RabbiJebediah good question. There is a tricky thing here with the current upgrade handlers that we cannot introduce new parameters until we figure that out. If we can figure that out quickly, we can add this as gov parameter. This is one of the first things tasked to the L1 team – figure out upgrade handlers.
@Mpowski this request for the second burn wallet was my first brainstorm to binance about how to exclude their burn from the remint. Ultimately, this required the upgrade handlers as mentioned above to Rabbi, so we cannot do it in this way yet. I shared this new idea with binance, and they are good with this, but didn’t update their announcement to reflect the new plan. 50/50 split is not set, i assume this discussion will go on for weeks.
As for the gas fees, we would have to make a hard coded split there to a dev wallet or fund. If that is the preferred method, that can be explored too.

[Frankleo]

An opinion. You are wrong on this LUNATICS Team. Your team is populated with some smart people, but you have been very wrong on burning, the tax reduction to .2% and funding. The OCBT can easily burn through 200-600 Million Coins per day at a 1.2% BT. But we need 2.5 Billion/Day minimum. Don’t ever touch the core burning from the BT. The rest of the burning needs to come from 6 areas or more: 1. Utility, whenever that happens. 2. Donors. 3. Validators. 4. Giveaway Gimmicks must be turned into burns. 5. ORACLE POOL/REWARDS. 6. Personal burning through community initiatives. Many of us have been against the reduction and re-minting/minting. Some of the intentions by those pushing for these things has been unrealistic or downright dishonest. The lack of morality on this issue is very disturbing. Burning is at the heart of everything. That is why LUNC got tens of thousands of investors, who subsequently left when LUNC leaders capitulated on the tax. It is a slippery slope. Get away with something, go after something even more ruthless. Now where are we? Back to square 1 almost. The community wants the tax raised back to 1.2% or higher, NO MINTING EVER and no diversion of BT for funding. Funding must be done separately. There are so many ways we could fund developers without stealing and disrespecting everyone who has burned. But ultimately we are going to have to make personal sacrifice as individuals within the community. The Blockchain is in debt. We need to stop playing around and get real and honest. Crypto King has made a good suggestion to get us through the first quarter. CPOOL. After that my opinion is on record, if there has been no alternative funding closed, i.e. Binance, Remove 2 Billion or 4 Billion from the Oracle Pool 50% burned/50% to CPOOL. Burning must be intertwined with everything we do, a bedrock principle. If it is, then the games will mostly stop. Price will go up. Your team has done marvelous work for LUNC and LUNC Community, but it is time to show humility, admit the errors in thinking and let’s move on. Don’t stop until we get to a burn of 2.5 BILLION/DAY!

[Alessandro_Nardaggio]

Yes Block reward instead of mint I think is the best way, I’m not sure how much of block reward need go to CP but any way instead of mint is better than it, and block reward maybe is the only way

[Tynos]

Well said…

[godoal]

@StopThisMadnees
Also, for completeness purposes, 10% out of that 50% to the CP from the GAS FEES currently end up in the TR developer’s multi-sig wallet: