Repeal Proposal 10983

Oh look the Terra Rebel Sock Puppet is back. Always pretending to have an opinion while sucking it to TR

1 Like

Community voted a param change, that changed behavior of burns. If people are not paying attention to chain governance, that’s their problem. We require no “consent” other than "consent’ of the community via governance votes.

Honestly mate, you proposing a further change based on us needing to get consent from people who decide to burn their assets, is laughable.

If you seriously believe that burning lunc, at the rate we have, is in the best interest of the protocol vs using that revenue to build our way out of the problem then put together a proposal that actually states, scientifically, why that’s the case


This has already been voted on and passed, we shouldn’t be having a prop to reverse what has just been voted on and approved.
Give it some time and then come forward with a new path foward not just reverse what has just been passed.
We need funds for development etc this does nothing to improve this.

That’s right we need MONEY so we can pay Terra Rebels for their stellar VOLUNTEERING! We don’t need to burn anything more we just need to get more MONEY to TERRA REBELS and all will be good. How much get we get to them just how quick? They might stop volunteering otherwise…

1 Like

590 / 5 000

Wyniki tłumaczenia

Wyniki tłumaczenia

Back and forth, back and forth… When will there finally be a tax management mechanism? The lack of consistency is a big downside and confuses new players, and old ones still pay when and how they want. Binance - YES has a weakness and a large LUNC bag, besides, I don’t need arithmetic formulas and grants to calculate the basic parameters. I know that LUNC => LUNO (Luna ONE) will launch from March 2023, it is the most depreciated CRYPTO in the world. LUNA has been kept under water for too long… Don’t worry buddy they will pay for their future wealth, if not they will regret it very much :slight_smile:

1 Like

How about we fix this like it should have been done initially:

  • Vegas or whoever the prior contact was makes contact with Binance, and requests if they have a preferred RewardPolicy value (up to a max of 0.5 which I believe is a sufficient for our funding purposes right now). If the prior contact is not interested in following up Binance, a new contact can be attempted.
  • If there is no response from Binance, we assume they are happy with status quo. However, in that case you could then draft a new proposal if you believe the mint-rate is too high. Personally I like these figures:
  • With Binance contributions: RP of 0.7. We mint 30%.
  • Without Binance contributions: RP remains at 0.5. We mint 50%.
  • We adjust going forward depending on funding needs.

Just a short question…why there is the value “rate_min”: “0.9”, “rate_max”: “0.9”, “cap”:{“denom”: “unused”, “amount”: “0” }, “change_rate_max”: “0.0”}”, I am a bit confused about the 0.9. Does it mean by passing this proposal the burning rate will be 0.9%?

Regarding the burning rates, I totally agree proposal 10983 was a total BS. For all those people commenting that it was the will of community I can tell them to grow up. First of all, the proposal barely passed, secondly for the past 2 days of voting there were issues with Terra Station and many people/validators were not able to vote. On 26 validators voted for this shaming proposal.

On the same topic, community was lied, again…When 10983 was discussed, they were supposed to get the feedback from Binance before any implementations but it never happened. Same like proposal 5234, we found out only after implementation that voluntary burns are part of minting although the discussion was that only on-chain tax will be part of the minting/seigniorage or whatever you wanna call it.

For all those people stating that Luna doesn’t need Binance I can say again…grow up. 70% of all the LUNC burned is because of Binance. I can also say that without public support from Binance price would be much, much lower.

1 Like

LOL. The “Rebels” were talking about how they are doing their work on a volunteer basis and now Binance is the one paying for it. If the “community” would have put enough pressure on those exchanges to introduce the 1.2% burn tax majority of the LUNC and UST would already been burned by now and there would be no need to constantly change stuff back and forth and introduce unnecessary proposals that weren’t needed when the chain was working either.


I totally agree to reduce the minting to 10%

I will vote yes.

Note: if I hear from binance, I may change my mind.

1 Like

This is an easy no with veto.

Take it easy… leave that for the next month.
It will be good to keep a reserve of greater value.
As a 90-year-old man, he is of no use, with some valuables in his account.

We just need to store it better.

:eye: :eye:

No Vegas and no Terribles. This is an easy yes for me. Repeal and set us free.

1 Like

you need to add the recent facts about stealing money from the community pool under development (150K by terrarebels) stating that 50% reprint opens the doors for more stealing in the future.
like that, honest validators and LUNC members know why it’s urgent to repeal that proposal cause there are parties would exploit the reprinted money for personal benefits under disingenuous claims

Hell yeah. Considering that trash called TR. You should totally clip their wings.

The 0.5 Rewards Policy argument we have in place now is still a RISK possibly causing Binance to pull out from their buy-back-and-burn cooperaion with LUNC.

At the moment we are waiting for their another burn - which will see a HUGE remint of potentially hundreds of thousands of USD worth of LUNC.

In my opinion this is a potentially dangerous point as they would have a directly referable cause to terminate this arrangement.

The cooperation with Binance is one of our biggest achievements and needs to be protected. The effect of their buy-backs are clearly visible on price action - and have been the ONLY major positive price upticks recently - proving both that BURNING works as well as the need to keep their help.

I will vote YES on this prop.


1 Like

Let’s correct the mistakes made, Vote Yes

1 Like

Just because he wants to overturn your wrong ? LOL

Yes repeal that terrible proposal and reinstate 1.2% burn tax (10% to devs so 1.08% burn 0.12% community pool).

I would like to point out absolutely disgraceful practice by some validators who are vetoing this proposal. VETOES are reserved for Scam and Malicious proposals and every self respecting validator should know that. Vetoing a valid proposal like this is against chain rules. It sets a bad precedent. Just looking at the previous proposal 10983 which had the exact same parameter change request (just in reverse) shows we had respectful Yes/No/Abstain vote. Its disapointing that the same people who voted yes on the previous prop are now trying to abuse a lower pass threshold of the VETO mechanism to stop a proposal which is against their interests.

Im asking all in the community to watch closely who will try to veto this prop and redelegate away from them. Unless we want all future proposals to be voted with yes and vetoes only. In this type of non-respectful environment no proposal will get passed.


Some validators are misusing the veto power.

If they don’t agree to the proposal they should vote NO. But they are misusing the VETO power for valid proposal.

Everyone please mark those validators and ask them the reasons why they voted VETO.