Classy will face numerous accusations and threats from community for ruining the chain
Transfer volume, not trading volume. Burn Tax has applied for transfer volume only. Don’t think Binance. We don’t know whenever they drop off burn tax.
Also it’s better to code the 10% to community pool with ZERO minting. It should be worked out paying directly from the tax itself. No LUNC should be minted at all. Only red candles to the supply no green. Minting should rightfully be considered a filthy word. Then focus on the LUNC burn and the hype will return, and the price movement.
The 0.2% tax movement justified to incentivise mystical yet-to-be created dapps which will somehow burn the whole supply has proven itself to be a complete failure.
The LUNC goal should be reducing total supply, funding community pool appropriately (10% is plenty), and trying to get exchanges to adopt the 1.2%. Going back to the burn narrative will bring back life to LUNC. This is obvious, as anytime people post online promoting burns their engagement goes way up.
The LUNC community was rallied behind 1.2%. When it was voted to be decreased it was said to be an experiment. Well the experiment didn’t work. Let’s go back to what did. Hopefully this time it will get more than a couple of weeks of run time…
2 Likes
First, I compliment your nickname.
Do you want to make a full contribution to every transaction?
You do not have to stay on the LUNC. The door to heaven is somewhere else.
BabyDoge pays tithe taxes as your religion wants.
You are the right person for this chain. Leave now to pay the tithes of Jesus’s wills.
Hallelujah, amen
No with veto!
Do you like tax in real life?
A def YES from me. Ideally await outcome of prop 11111 votes; but nevertheless When in doubt risk it !!!
2 Likes
Yes, so that I can contribute (and enjoy) as a member of this society the basic services that make my community members’ life better, even more so those not as privileged as I am.
Tax is bad if the contribution to the communal good is non-existent and ends up in big fat pockets.
- Policing
- Firefighting
- Rubbish Collection
- Road Cleaning
- Health System (in most places)
- Public Education System
- Penal System
These are the benefits/services you get for paying taxes, and if you don’t you must DEMAND you get them because you are paying for them and others (less privileged) depend on them.
If you don’t like paying TAXES then you shouldn’t have a problem also with rich people being able to afford all of the above while you don’t. Even if that means you are on your deathbed for something as simple as not being able to afford to be seen by a doctor.
The TAX proposed is for the good of the chain because it takes away our systemic problem of excessive coins. Like CZ once said the only way forward is to reduce the coin supply.
2 Likes
Tax is good if is distributed in a right way. Like you said, police, firefighters etc, I agree with that. But, at least in my country, it also lead to distribute it in not appropriate way like funding socials for people without any smart idea, Im against it.
Here in LUNC blockchain, I also like idea with tax, but at the minimum level. We cant burn coins only with tax, because it proves that we want to fix blockchain by other (new investors?) people.
Also when there was 1.2% tax, there were idea to divide it on (and here was a lot of ideas which led to strange discussions how we can spend that money etc).
I am not against removing the tax and making all transactions frictionless on the chain either, that should be the end-game as it’s needed for all the wonderful games and DApps currently under development.
It’s just that we are at a point where we cannot afford to get rid of our only sure-burn method (at present) to reduce our supply glut. When another sure-burn method does show up and comes on board (I personally believe and hope that be the LUNC/USTC swaps enablement) then I will be the first one to sound the horn to take down this taxation method…
…at the end of the day, we need to be in a position of strength supply-wise when the next bull market hits us.
And how certain are you that the high volume experienced pre-tax was not due to the fact that staking was enabled at that point and everyone rushed to stake their coins? In plain English, where is your evidence that the 1.2% tax killed the volume and was not a simple organic drop?
Btw, showing graphs of the volume progress itself does not prove that the tax was the issue. That’s false analytics where meaning is attached on demand to the volume fluctuations to serve the story that needs to be told.
Coincidentally (as expected?) the volume picked up again when new validators were allowed in the mix (0.2% tax at that point!) and it normalized after that once again 
1 Like
Read the words of a wise man. CZ himself warning about the 1.2% tax. You think if you bring it back binance will continue to support us.
4 Likes
Nice questions ClassyCrypto dude. This is your answer below:
You want proof, here it is from our biggest LUNC burner, the one contributing the biggest burns:
This is your proof sir. I cannot support your proposal and I don’t think binance will.
Lunc burns like this useless at the moment. Hype ended, price backed. Need real utility, working Anchor, Mirror and another main ustc apps.
3 Likes
What you have forgotten to mention is that he said that AFTER the wise man said FIRST that the only salvation for the chain was to BURN the excess coins. As a matter of fact, he said that even AFTER we had implemented the 1.2% tax burn and we were calling out to him to fulfill his word and join the burn effort.
So, please don’t pluck information out of the web without the historical context behind it in order to support your hollow theory.
Also, there are more chances Binance will stop helping us because of the 50% clawback that’s about to happen on their next burn rather than because we’re staying true to what we said we were going to do in the chain, to begin with…
1 Like
This is not what we want, another change to a tax, we still don’t have utility, its in sight yes, not here just yet, the dust hasn’t settled on ground zero (no pun intended), our team has split in to two teams one for L1 and L2 functionality.
We do need to pay the devs, but this is the fourth time we have set a new tax param, when the tax was set at 1.2% it lasted 17 days, there was a decrease in volume, once again we are setting a tax with out utility being enabled again.
@ClassyCrypto this is peoples money your playing with, not for clicks on youtube, or likes and retweets on twitter, your making money in both spaces as influencer and validator, I honestly don’t think you have done any research on this otherwise you would of seen the history of the last attempt at setting the tax at 1.2%.
If you dont have facts, it’s your opinion @Switch1775 . The 1.2% tax died in its infancy. My point has always been; we will not attract state of the Arts dApps with our present L1 chain. For dApps to be useful they must have massive adoption. So far, what dApps do we have that fall into that category? Now that we know that this dApps narrative was pushed by a particular faction of the community, I am 100% behind the return of the 1.2% burn tax . This was working!
2 Likes
Once again! Where is the evidence that the 1.2% tax was the cause of the volume drop and was not simply an organic move after the influx of coins for staking purposes calmed down?
…and so as not to repeat what was said above:
@godoal the fact it wasn’t allowed to run its course of time; you know that the more tax revenue is from the amount of on-chain transactions so this speaks for itself.
I have said it before, and I’ll say it again. LUNC without a decent burn tax is a meme coin. a Shiitcoin to be precise. The rushed tax reduction 0.2% didn’t perform even close to what was promised. " We nEeD dApPs , that’ll bUrn mOrE " . What blockchain shattering Dapp popped up since the reduction? NADA.
INVESTORS DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT DAPPS.
1 Like
Exactly! People panicked and rushed behind the idea that the tax caused the volume drop. Instead of thinking it was the staking activation that caused the huge on-chain volume increase which was later perceived as a volume drop that needed to be blamed/attributed to something!
Following your reasoning, there should have been a significant pick-up in the on-chain transactions since the tax was dropped to 0.2%. That did NOT happen. What we have seen instead is the transaction volume range being exactly the same as when we had the 1.2% tax with the exception around the new validators period.
That same reasoning re-enforces the argument that the initial volume increase was due to staking being enabled which naturally created an influx of on-chain transactions a.k.a volume (when people moved coins from CEX to on-chain) that naturally drop when all coins to-be staked were staked and we have reached a normalised state in terms of on-chain transactions.
1 Like