Return LUNC Burn Tax to 1.2% & Re-establish Community Trust

There have been two schools of thought when it comes to the “BURN TAX”. This proposal attempts to return back to our original burn tax (1.2%) & re-establish trust within the Terra Luna Classic community.

When seeing the rate of progress & general lack of enthusiasm when it comes to development of L2 DAPPs on the Terra Luna Classic chain I came to realize that current funding methods & reductions in our chain’s burn tax have only SEVERELY HURT the community’s trust. To fix this is simple. Head back to where we originally were per proposal 4661 in that edk826 (Edward Kim) stated that we should re-assess this tax 3 months later.

The Terra Rebels roadmap also states we should check back with the burn tax in December. It’s now December & we have seen the GRAVE ramifications of lowering our burn tax too fast. The community has lost trust & the FIRE which made Terra Luna Classic the rising phoenix it once was got put out.

What’s the issue? The issue is our chain is still FAR from any revolutionary utility which will make it more competitive than other major chains that exist currently. We must embrace the advantage we DO have. The community. We EASILY by FAR have the largest community in the Cosmos & given how fast we’d grown & the easing of tensions within the LUNA collapse we can continue to leverage community growth & do what assets like SHIB failed to do. Have a running L1 chain that can ACTUALLY burn a considerable amount of the supply.

It’s time that we begin to listen to our community once again. Let’s return to the 1.2% burn tax & give it the 3 months we said we would give it. Indecision has gotten us nowhere. Reducing this tax has only made us look foolish & weak. It’s time to become what Terra Luna Classic should’ve been in the first place.

The rising phoenix.

This proposal doesn’t stand to be permanent but does unite us all once again under one banner.
Once utility arises on our chain we can look back & re-assess whether the tax has performed its job.

Our proposal change is simple. Change the 0.2% burn tax to 1.2%. We still have the community pool funding that our developers need & we get the burns the community has wanted.

Proposal 10960 did not pass as it was a temporary solution during IBC reopening. While we have had over $5 MILLION in volume after IBC reopening our chain should be transparent & concise in that we need to STICK to a % burn tax for a longer period of time. Keep in mind that the most popular LUNC pool in Osmosis currently has ~an 8% tax right now so 1.2% can definitely work given our current use cases & will essentially give just as much if not MORE to the developers in terms of community pool re-mints.

It’s a win-win.

Code changes needed :
“subspace”: “treasury”,
“key”: “TaxPolicy”,
“value”: “{"rate_min": "0.012", "rate_max": "0.012", "cap": {"denom": "usdr", "amount": "60000000000000000"}, "change_rate_max": "0.0"}”

Proposed by
Classy Crypto, Classy’s Crypto Sphere LUNC Validator
LUNC Holders & Community Members
@ClassyCrypto_ (Twitter)


Great. Fully support


Just for information I have informed classy that that voluntary help we get from 3rd parties will be effected by this prop and he doesnt care he thinks we are all wrong and he knows best so please take this in mind when voting


This individual has only threatened me & given this opinion without providing proof.

Questions ; WHY would voluntary help magically CEASE if the burn tax were to change?

WHAT are these individuals contributing?

WHERE is the proof?


I cant give you proof and yeah i called you a little prick and stupid etc cos you dont understand what your doing and how much hard work your undoing done by members but hey dont let me stop you the whole community will hate you in approx 30 days, Classy Crypto has finally shown his true colors which seem to be against lunc and only here to damage the chain, ive told him exactly what will happen and he doesnt care you should undelegate from him asap cos he is about to ruin your wallet, and stop thinking you deserve to know more info i gave you what i could, but when its all over and i can speak freely i will out you over this and i have made no threats ive only told you what will happen when or if your props passes

Yes; provided proposal 11111 also passes first so that the value of the rewards is set back down to 10%.


I don’t think this is a good move. We’ll look childish to any serious investor.
Investors needs predictability.
NO with VETO from me!

Hey @ClassyCrypto. I like the idea very much tbh. Especially if you keep the reward policy at 50%. This means we can benefit from burns and from replenishing the community pool at the same time.

Can you provide (or do you have) any evidence that the 0,2% burn tax increased the on-chain volume as opposed to the 1,2%?

1 Like

Opa Boa Tarde tem como fazer o sistema fazer automaticamente a taxa variendo entre 0,2 ate 1,2 o para todas as trasaçoes , aposto que a brincadeira iria ficar bem melhor !
imagina so varias trasacoes com varias taxas diferente o dia todo!
com certeza eu ficaria mais tranquilo.

No. Current 0.2% is enough. What this chain needs is more transactions, so rather put an effort to achieve that.

50% re-mint needs to be returned to 10%.


Whats wrong with you? Why are you trying to destroy lunc. Are you doing this only to get followers? This shows you dont care about the chain and you only want to profit as an influencer.

1 Like

The way I see it, this proposal would cancel proposal-11111. It would actually do worse.
50% from 0.2% is 0.1%
10% from 0.2% is 0.02% (if proposal-11111 is implemented).
10% from 1.2% would be 0.12% - which is worse than current 50%

Whom are you trying to fool here @ClassyCrypto talking about “Community Trust”?

Are you a proxy for someone?

1 Like

I have no on-chain data supporting the 0.2% tax increasing on-chain volume.

This is why we re-assess taxes.


For third-party transactions, it’s the percentage that matters not the percentage out of the on-chain burn rate since their transaction is a one-off.
i.e. 10% out of 0.2% OR 10% out of 1.2% is for on-chain transactions. For them is a flat 10% out of their single transaction.

Also, I do like the 10% (out of 1.2%) because it can be funded mostly out of our on-chains 1.1% burn rate rather than the generous contribution of that third party we all know about. Yes, the income to the CP will be slightly higher than the existing one (as you pointed out) but still predominantly coming out of our on-chain transaction tax.

Let’s not forget that some other CEXs out there are actually doing the 1.2% burn while WE DON’T. I was reminded of that looking into some coin memos send to the burn address at the luncpenguins.

Ideally would be nice to see this (1.2% with 10% rewards) come to pass and stay a month or so after the LUNC/USTC swap is re-enabled; so we get an understanding of how much the latter is contributing to the burn effort. If it’s as good as expected we might as well abolish the tax burn using this method at that point altogether and/or use it for CP funding purposes.


No with Veto…
It kills LUNC just by ourselves again…
We must not ignore the on-chain transfer volume data which droped to 1/10 when we got the first 1.2% tax implementation.

1 Like

I will support this. I tried to raise the tax before the IBC reopened and it was rejected. Im glad Classy decided to pick this up.

0.2% had zero impact on volume and brought in zero utility. It is all a meme. We were at an ATH following a 100% burn policy and need to get back to it asap.


Please review past data again. The on chain volume did drop following a significant decrease in a staking APR. Its not an effect of the 1.2% burn tax. When staking on LUNC opened, it offered 400% APR and many people wanted to join it quick. That was a cause for a spike in volume and great price action.

If you need a proof that burns do work - just see below what happens once a month when Binance does buy-back-and-burn of LUNC. Price instantly moves up. With higher onchain burn we would be impacting the price action even more.

It is especially important now to start burning more when overall volume in all crypto is lower.


Yes classy. Don’t get emotional this time. Many people oppose this proposal but let me take 2 months back when there was 1.2 % implemented only one week after it were be changed to 0.2 % and that was very immature decision. So it’s 2 months has passed and we saw that no major increase in on chain volume so there is no issues to bring this tax from 0.2 % to 1.2 %. Increasing and decreasing tax depends upon matter of time even GOVERNMENT/ BANKS changes tax accordingly there situation. So it is good.


Guys - forgive me … But ONE mechanism will be better than all of you, moreover, it will implement the program we need regardless of everything … There is a proposal, let’s work on it finally

                           - - L2 tax collector - -

How far will it go forth / back and forth… If we want to be predictable and believable?! Unfortunately, 1 man can be wrong but 100 people can’t. So let’s do something together and stick to it. Work on the tax system has not started - we need to develop a PERMANENT.
Yes I agree in these circumstances IBC opening + Christmas + New Year’s is always harvest time and a higher tax would be better but by the time it comes in it will be all over and it will be… back to the past.

Yes go back to the 1.2% and only 10% to devs (repeal the 50% asap). Then we have 1.08% burn 0.12% devs. Done and lock it in. 0.2% did not do what it was claimed. Burn should be the primary focus.

1 Like