Love the sudo! I did write a mockup requirements/specification and function outline as well here based on the costings we have seen so far on some proposals recently in Agora
1 Like
@ek826 hasnât commented on that yet; too many comments to read though⌠
How so?
If you think about it the split becomes irrelevant once you set a CAP on the amount you want to populate in the CP, for dev funding purposes, out of the on-chain TAX. In practice, the percentage split becomes a tap controlling the flow of how fast we fill up the CP with the pre-agreed amount of $ every week.
- 90/10 = 10% (to CP) the tap is 1/10th open and fills the CP slowly [might take 6 days], once it reaches the CAP any new TAX proceeds for the CP are diverted to the BURN address instead
- 50/50 = 50% (to CP) the tap is half open and fills the CP faster [might take 2 days], once it reaches the CAP any new TAX proceeds for the CP are diverted to the BURN address instead
, as a case study, assume we increase the on-chain tax to 40% for a week from 1.2%
- using 90/10 the CP CAP will be reached within a day so the rest 6 days of the week all CP bound proceed will be diverted to the BURN address
- using 50/50 the CP CAP will be reached in a few hours so pretty much all 7 day CP bound proceeds will be diverted to the BURN address
AND AGAIN (for those not followed the thread from the beginning)
All of the above is in the context of this proposal, which will completely REMOVE MINTING and STOP the pillaging of the third-party BURN contributions (CEX, Individuals etc.)
P.S. For completeness purposes I will add again the mockup requirement/specification of the proposed changes
2 Likes
Hi @ek826,
I know that youâre against the voices that want the tax to be backed at 1.2% but I see that there is a mediatory solution now the main phase of development to make the chain attractive again to be built on it would take a minimum of 3 months as you stated in the L1 proposal we can utilize that period to back the tax at 1.2% temporary and divide it into 3 streams as follows:-
1- 0.1% community pool for dev funding
2- 0.2% oracle pools to replenish the staking rewards
3- 0.9% permanent burn ( no reprint)
after the end of the proposed three months, the community pool will be filled with a reasonable amount of LUNC that can fund devs for two more years at least.
Then, we can take the tax down again to 0.2% (adjustable whether to split it or not).
Notice that getting back the tax again to 1.2% even temporarily will increase the price of LUNC and the funds in the community pool accordingly.
1 Like
I think we should restrict our comments only to this topic. The burn tax is not being discussed here. That has already been decided by proposals which have passed before this. If there are future proposals please discuss then on a different thread, otherwise two different proposals are getting mixed up in comments.
Also, you guys are randomly commenting on things which may not be possible to implement in code. Youâre not even reading what Ed just said. The one who has created this thread IS THE DEVELOPER. He just suggested what should be done considering all possibilities and timelines.
What you guys are suggesting are ideas, which can discussed on a different thread.
After reading an re-reading I have made up my mind. I too am against the 50/50
Burn is burn. Burn it all, no split of any kind, no reduction on our burn commitment.
Instead, put that multi signatory wallet into the community pool. Stake it in its entire form, all 4 million USD. All staking rewards are to be the DEV budget creating a sustainable income.
4 Likes
Where did he say that? Itâs not mentioned in this proposal! The proposal says the split will only be applied to the 0.2% on-chain tax proceeds just because the tax parameter is currently set to 0.2%
I did ask something along these lines to verify that this proposal will not set/tinker with the existing tax value and/or will respect whichever value is set via governance before this proposal comes to pass and appears to be the case based on his response:
Maybe we can repurpose the contract that burns 70% of the CP proceeds coming out of the Tx Fees (as per prop:4080) and redirect some of them to the Oracle Pool! The contribution to the BURN effort using the Tx Fees is negligible at present so could serve as a stop-gap solution to the Oracle replenishment issue. Btw those coins were originally earmarked as rewards for delegators.
The burn tax is being discussed here, hence the 50/50 split of the on-chain burn tax between burn and community pool as proposed by Ed. This is directly applicable to the burn tax.
As the burn tax rate may be changed and increased (for example 1.2%), then 50% of this being 0.6% to the community pool is a highly relevant topic of discussion. The proposed 50/50 split is being pitched as a hardwired and permanent fix, with any changes to receive a no with veto according to this proposal, affecting whatever real burn rate we have. To judge whether the 50/50 is an appropriate funding proposal for the CP we need to consider future changes to the burn tax and increases in LUNC price. I believe 90/10 is much better, or like others suggested a cap on the community pool where excess LUNC will be burned. These changes must be discussed and sorted out now as it will be impossible or very difficult to change them later.
1 Like
Please respect previous proposals which have passed. This 50-50 was done based on previous proposals.
So as I mentioned earlier, if you wanna change that, you will need to come up with a proposal. Here the discussion is regarding something technical - that whether or not, what is being suggested, should be implemented or not.
There is already a discussion regarding the 1.2% burn tax and even a 0.6% burn tax. You can add your comments to those discussions which are not getting much audience.
That is VERY interesting idea. Not sure how it could be combined with the proposal that passed which states that the multisig funds will be released to the CP, but still VERY interesting.
The only problem I see is how we deal with the time until that happens. This multisig move process might take year(s) to complete with all the legal issues that need to be ironed out before ever getting to the point of a transfer. We cannot afford to stand still for a year (at best)âŚwe must keep moving forward.
Couldnât agree more. That is exactly the scenario I had in mind when I start working on an intuitive solution for limiting the amount of contribution to the CP using the 50/50 (or even 90/10) to the absolute required and diverting all overhead to the BURN address. So the absolute burn rate fluctuates and will tend to normalise to the optimal value (per week) using any percentage of splitting selected
I think you are missing the point of what @JESUSisLORD is saying.
The 50/50 is applied ONLY on the on-chain transactions. That was never the subject of a past proposals. The past proposals applied 50/50 on the total tax value AND Seigniorage Reward Policy. That second 50 on the Seigiorage Reward Policy was the reason for the re-mint which this proposal aims to deprecate.
1 Like
You are saying the community must respect the 50/50 minting proposal which passed by a hairs breadth? Now we canât disagree with Edâs 50/50 on-chain burn tax in this proposal? Let me remind you that the 50/50 was just rejected and obviously overturned with overwhelming support in vote 11111, when the community voted for 90/10.
This proposal is twisting 11111 to suggest the community supports 50/50 on-chain, when they donât. 11111 was a clear repudiation of 10983. We donât want 50/50. Stop messing with the burns. Itâs developers desire for funding which is continually sabotaging the burns against the community, to the detriment of LUNC. The people behind 10983, reducing the 1.2% tax, and all the minting need to take a good hard long look at themselves. Only because Binance threatened to pull support and has reduced their burn is the community waking up to what was wrong, developers/validators supporting extremely poor governance decisions.
Ever since 1.2% was removed after 3 weeks LUNC has been in chaos, being pulled apart and many people with the influence and decision making power continually turn their backs on the burns we need, and burning is what the community supports. Now we see a great result in 11111 rejecting 10983, but now another attempt by developers to strangle the burn with a 50/50 on-chain. There is no reason why we canât have great burns and good support for developers.
So no I disagree with you for the reasons I stated earlier, I will discuss what I believe is relevant to this proposal (I discuss the 1.2% directly on the other thread).
5 Likes
We sold all the LUNC on the 28th, if they increase the % of burning, the coinage disappears, and they stop stealing from the community pool, we buy again. If it is an investment adviceÂĄÂĄÂĄ
I strongly support and I agree that the tax should purely be used for burning as well as funding the community pool. Thank you for your help!
In LUNC WE TRUST!
1 Like
Again, youâre not reading what he has originally written in the proposal.
We are talking in terms of HARD CASH EQUIVALENT in crypto. You are talking in terms of PERCENTAGES.
He has already calculated that if we do a 50% of 0.2% then it amounts to the same MONEY that we would have got if itâs a 10% remint. Cause a re-mint is TECHNICALLY NOT A REMINT. Itâs a TRACKER. So it does NOT REMINT 10% EVERY TIME.
Which is WHY it is being REMOVED.
AFTER doing that, if you feel that the tax is needed to be reduced or increased he has already mentioned that as a comment on the L1 Task Force thread, that you can do that.
Your central point is that you donât care about that 200-300 million going to CP. Thatâs fine. Thatâs your opinion. But you donât need to write walls of text just to write one line. That you donât care about development money or how much we need for it, cause I am continuously mentioning here that THE OP CANNOT BE ACCESSED THAT EASILY. So whatever we need to do, we NEED TO DO FROM THE CP. And that multi-sig wallet is nowhere currently. We cannot even consider that.
You developer types are speaking in semantics. Let me make it really clear for you.
NO to 50/50 on-chain tax disposal.
You and the rest were wrong when you supported dropping the 1.2%, the original mint, and 10983.
You can keep talking in circles about how the 50/50 is the equivalent of all the proposals combined. 10983 was repudiated by 11111.
We want burns. You can fund the CP easily with 90/10 and a higher tax rate such as 1.2%, without Binance being factored in. I already showed the calculations earlier in the thread, bringing $1.4 million per year at current volumes and price, much more with higher volume and price. To accuse me of not caring about funding developers is weak. Go read my earlier comments.
You sit there trying to shut down the discussion when I am mentioning relevant points to the 50/50 on-chain disposition proposed here. I wonât be silenced by you.
4 Likes
I think you donât get the point. People donât 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 doesnât want to do any sacrifices. Decreasing the lunc oversupply must be the main focusâŚ
3 Likes
I have plotted the suggested changes along with the âas isâ and âdefault proposalâ specs in a diagram.
I hope it will come in handy and help simplify things:
5 Likes
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.
P.S.
We never said stop burning, but if we donât 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, doesnât 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 thereâs way to contribute to the CP without reminting, according to this proposal, thatâs good but why are you still hell bent on the 50-50 tx split? Why canât you accept that the Community doesnât 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?
3 Likes
Because those nerds help us maintain and keep the chain modern. You sound very brave but with someone elseâs 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 Iâve 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 didnât pass governance but helps to get the point across].
Maybe Itâs too much, I would be interested to hear what you think is more appropriateâŚ
1 Like