It is so clearly written there by him.
A small few: if you don’t force 1.2% tax on all your users, u r centralized/greedy.
Me: I believe the opposite. Forcing a tax is “centralized”, high tax is greedy. We protect our users. We let our users choose. We are firm on this principle.
Go read again. I highlighted the best parts for you.
I have read that plenty of times the day it was out, you still seem to take this out of context though.
So here is the historical context under which it was said by the person that is already doing quite a lot of BURN on his own blockchain in order to keep it afloat (successfully) during this bear market cycle.
History context. It is written there clear as day. You say you have looked at it many times. Are you sure we are seeing the same words. It is written there. Perfect for everyone to see. I even bolded some words…wow.
Are you changing his words?
OK. You type what is written on the tweet. Maybe I have something else.
Or show any other tweet he gave to contradict what he said about high tax. What I see is someone saying where there is high tax, I cannot support. I am telling you all. We will loose CZ if we put the 1.2% tax. LUNC currently has no value, no utility is on chain. We are at the bottom. The only super power we have is our cheap chain.
Bring me proof that contradicts that post, saying CZ is not against 1.2% because what I read is this, no change of words by me, no historical context, no translations. Exactly what he wrote as it is:
So what he said in that post was after certain events/posts took place. Those events were:
If you read that single post out of context it has a certain meaning. However, if you read it as a follow-through to the previous posts made by that same poster you start to unravel a story that has a different meaning to that post alone! 
I would like to clarify an often raised pount here that the 1.2% tax had anything to do with chain volume being lowered. It is incorrect. Overall decisions by LUNC Community to reduce the Total supply have been extremely inefective since the beginning.
By all of our decisions up to this date we have WASTED every single meaningful opportunity to reduce the Total Supplly - which is sumarised in the attachements.
It is time to realise what we have done.
There was way more utility and interest around the project when we were at peak Burn focus than now.
Spot on!
Unfortunately, we have used the waiting period between actions 1 and 2 as the stick and carrot approach to the then “frozen” chain set of validators in order to entice them into voting for the chain un-freeze a.k.a re-enable governance and staking.
We would have burned A LOT of coins should it be activated at the same time but was the price to pay for getting back control of our chain 
Blurring the issue is not a good way to debate.
1.2% tax burn is already failed model. The community saw the results of the proposal, and as a result, it lost 90% of its on-chain transaction volume, and no drama like the price increase that everyone expected happened.
All that was left was a hopeless result that even if 1.2% tax was burned for 10 years, the issuance volume could not be reduced by half.
If you don’t remember what happened 2 months ago, I won’t comment any.
If you’ve already tried it once and you’ve got a bad result, it’s normal to study and try different ways.
At least the other way around, the result will be either positive or negative.
But failed model will be negative result only. What is next after change 1.2%?
You guys have no future plan. Isn’t it? You just want to sell coins by pumping prices ASAP.
Anyway, if you want to face the same situation, I won’t stop you. As I said in the previous comment, a foolish person repeats the same mistake.
If that’s the case with the public psychology of the LUNC chain community, it means that there’s only that much chance to rebirth of a chain.
the Crypto chain goes down dozens of times a day. There are many chains to replace with LUNCs. It means we don’t have to keep on board a bus that drives itself to destruction.
There’s no blurring, it’s a fact that:
I was skeptical when we initially vote to reduce the tax to 0.2% because all evidence provided to support the case was based on flimsy analytics. I didn’t mind that much though as we could treat this reduction as an experiment on its own to gather more data about the chain transaction volume.
Now we have more data from that second experiment which supports that initial case advocating that the 1.2% tax was not responsible for the volume drop and was rather an organic reaction.
For the record, I did do my due diligence and analysis of the on-chain Pre/Post TAX data and posted them on the original post by @Akujiro that was regarding the proposal to move to 0.2%. Have a read-through and draw your conclusions, this time using actual transaction info drawn from the two periods:
Lower the tax rate to 0.2% and set aside 10% of tax revenue to finance ecosystem infrastructure and contributors - Governance & Proposals - Terra Research Forum
If you have to offer an alternative way to reduce our total supply at a constant(ish) rate I’m all ears, but seems to me we have only one option on the table as we speak.
Totally agree with you.From the very beginning, I suggested that incineration be turned on in the first place.And only after 1-2 months I suggested enabling staking.
I am not a native Englishman. I hope the translation is correct and understandable.
After the collapse, many people lost all their money. I invested more money in LUNc to recover part of what was lost. Why did I do it? Certain groups and people arose who said that they were going to save lunc and that Do Kwon had abandoned all the investors and that they were going to save the Community, or so I understood. They promoted two formulas:
1 Restore and fix what was broken
2 Reduce the supply and recover the price.
The restoration in principle altruistically. The reduction of the supply was made with the tax on burning.
But things change, there is no altruism anymore, now everyone wants money. There is no longer any interest in people recovering part of their money or looking for the common good. Now it is business, money is requested as soon as there is a community fund. If there is a community fund, it is because it has been stolen from the burning tax.
There were very good proposals to increase the community fund and pay developers in case they needed it, but without burning it out, but nobody wanted a sacrifice. It is easier to take it from a tax that was already working but was not created for that purpose.
The burning must be restored. The tax was created to burn. If someone wants money for the pool, come up with another formula. The two things are compatible and without canceling each other.
The community is centralized. The price of Lunc no longer matters, nor recovering the lost money, nor the circulating supply, that has gone into the background, not to say that it no longer matters and as for restoring what is broken, it is no longer altruistic, money is asked for advanced and fights to lead it.
The business is payroll work. It does not matter how the price evolves or that the money is not recovered.
To reduce the supply they put a tax rate on us, we have voluntarily burned. So that? , the smoke from the burning has drawn the business attention of some. The money from the burning is being kept.
I’m not opposed to developers getting paid…but any formula shouldn’t affect the burn tax, that’s what the tax was invented for. Look at the world forums, they all talk like idiots about burning, some say it will get to 1 eventually. they are deceived With this supply it will not move from the real price, there are no dapps that are created. Investors will flee and the price will fall. But those who lead no longer care. and finally, the latest events are scaring me.
taxation system that severs many objectives would be better during the bear market temporarily:
1- 0.1% for pool community (development & maint.)
2- 0.2% for oracle pools (staking rewards)
3- 0.3% permanent burn (reducing supply)
---------------------------------------
0.6% total tax without a reprint
No need pools go burn for lunc only or dont care lunc. And %1.2 to high maybe 0.6 normal
And burn oracle pool dont stack
Someone has misguided you about how the chain works, please do some research on PoS chains. If you burn the Oracle Pool and take away the staking then you are taking away the incentive of keeping the chain alive from those that do the block checking (validators) and keep it alive.
That is why our chain is called Proof-Of-Stake, if you take the “Stake” away (a.k.a remove/burn Oracle Pool funds) you end up with a Proof-Of-
Stack is not a priority at the moment, according to me, price stability is needed as soon as possible. and the way of investing in the future
if you think the money will appreciate, you buy the price
stack method is the hunting method for the unstable
It might not be a priority for you but it’s an integral part of how the chain works!
To make an analogy; is like saying that you want to remove the engine of your car in order to be lighter so it can run faster.
Hi friend,
I think a middle way between 1,2 and 0,2 must be tried, please check this proposal and let me know what do you think about it:
Also now there is at vote in governance proposal 11127 that is to set tax rate at 0,6% if we think is OK, we can vote this one, I already did it.
I see your point @godoal, sorry for the late reply. Hope fully we see some positive outcomes 
Yes this is absolutely true
My hope is we re-enable USTC <> LUNC swaps with a CAP in the minting function for LUNC to 10B so every USTC buy burns LUNC without the re-minting in reverse (due to the CAP).
Even more, I hope it will yield some substantial burn rate so that we can get rid of this TAX (whatever its value) altogether and/or keep (temporarily) a 0.01% purely for Dev purposes. Even that last one will have to eventually be removed and start using the existing Dev funding functions already provided by the chain out of the Tx fees
@ClassyCrypto I owe you an apology, I watched your video this morning on the Classy Sphere changes 100% yield into burns 0% commission and all ad revenue to the burn too. My hat off to you sir.
@godoal mate you and me both, have a great festive season mate.
