I agree, put up the 1.2% for vote asap. We’ve discussed this in this thread, now is not the time to do a proposal switch up or u-turn and require another 7 days discussion. Give Classy a bit more time, but if he doesn’t proceed someone should put up the 1.2% for vote anyway. Now is not the time to hesitate. We are on the cusp of a great thing.
3 Likes
No. Big no.
IMO the next burn parameter change proposal should be reviewed and supported by the L1 task force (once established) and some of the validators who are building on the chain before putting it up for a vote. We have been seeing a few burn and mint change proposals weekly and they have all pretty much gone nowhere.
I think its pointless to put up a proposal until at least a few entities are on board with it or we are most likely facing another proposal 10983 situation.
1 Like
The chain belongs to the community, not a TFL-style org. All decisions come from the community and the community collectively is responsible for all of them (good and bad).
This (Agora) is the place where everyone, including those entities you have mentioned, comes to voice their concerns and raise their arguments publicly on the to-be proposal. Helps to think of Agora as a community parliament of sorts where any issues are discussed beforehand…
2 Likes
Hell NO.
It is not time for increasing tax.
Lunc has not improved fundamentally.
It is so stupid to rely on tax at this moment.
It will wipe out volume and prevent developers further away
Think a government, do they increase tax when economy is not good?
Normally they do not do that.
It can apply to Lunc as well. Also, rely on tax is not good strategy.
L1 team is getting ready and community is seeing positive thing.
Now is time to build, attract new developers etc.
Increasing tax at this timing is the worst thing you can do right now unless you want to destroy Lunc.
1 Like
Yes of course. Supported
1 Like
It didn’t help increase volume when we did reduce the tax from 1.2% to 0.2%, so what do you base those claims on?
Government tax management has nothing to do with monetary policy.
Central banks do Monetary Policy, they print (mint) money when things are tight using tools like Quantitative Easing, and tighten supply (similar to burn) by increasing Interest Rates. LUNC had its unfortunate QE moment and now we need to start tightening supply to make it manageable once again a.k.a burn. If you think 1.2% is too much check how much all Central Banks have increased their interest rates to curb their moderate, in comparison to LUNC, QE cycle.
1 Like
I don’t necessarily think it is needed to do a 1.2% tax as this might be too high. On the other hand 0.2% won’t cut it and as long as the exchange won’t tax off-chain trading volume nothing will move here either way. The exchanges are truly the key gateway to burning off the majority of the supply, but what is the community doing? Letting the exchanges off the hook!
I think that the real answer is in finding a way to get all the exchanges to tax off-chain volume and I think that this could be achieved fairly easily. The real question is: Does the “community” really want it? I honestly don’t think so…
@undercover_agent I am curious as to how you think the LUNC community could force an exchange to tax off-chain transactions. I would like to know how you think it can be achieved fairly easily.
1 Like
Thank you for the reply.
I’m not saying the volume has increased since we implemented 0.2
I’m saying 1.2 will further decrease volume.
Also, how do you attract new developers with 1.2%?
We haven’t seen many new developers right now but possibly
they would come after the L1 team starts to build. However,
1.2 % have no chance to attract new developers.
Actually it costs developers more than 1.2% since they have to
go through multiple transactions for a piece of development.
How do you attract them?
If you were a developer, which would you choose, 0.2 or 1.2%?
Tell me.
- The point is not who implements policy.
For this discussion, it doesn’t matter if it’s the government or the central bank.
I am saying increasing tax in recession only hurts.
Do you want higher tax when you are suffering financially?
Also, you are saying,
Interest rate = tax
US economy = LUNC
They are not the same.
The U.S.economy is obviously far more complicated.
Therefore, your argument about central banks increased interest rate vs increasing tax of Lunc does not make any sense.
However, If you want to talk about the central bank increasing interest rates, Let’s do that.
I feel that you do not understand why the US increased interest rates.
Normally in bear market, like now, the central bank does not
Increase interest rate. Why?
Because it hurts economic activity.
However,
They have to do that this time, to fight inflation, which is caused by supply side issues (oil, food and more because of Russia war and other factor)
It is not talking about printing too much money.
So your supply side story is not logically correct.
Your claim about “central bank is increasing interest so Lunc also should increasing tax” does not make any sense also.
Lunc supply situation is completely different story and
it won’t go down by increasing tax.
You are saying “money supply is moderate compared to Lunc,
but still they increased interest so Lunc should increase tax rate” doesn’t make any sense.
Basically your claims are not logically correct.
You do not understand many things.
1 Like
The bottom line is that the giant supply of LUNC coins need to be burned. 0.2% is too low. We need 1.2% again. 0.2% was justified based on Dapps which didn’t appear, and you are putting the same argument. We need burns, not mystery dapps.
The burn mechanism by Binance of its fees started when we still had the 1.2% burn tax, so no one here can claim that they will stop burning fees when the first burn was clearly when we still had the 1.2%
Secondly, the burn mechanism of Binance is off chain, not on-chain. Please note that with the 1.2% burn tax back in place and a 10% remint, we will be able to fill the community pool more with it (0.12%) than we would have with the 50% of 0.2%(0.1) and the remint rate for Binance will be 10% ,same as when it was 10% of 0.2%.
A win-win for everyone.
Binance will not stop burning its fees because we are reminting because they did not oppose the 10% remint in the past 2 burns so we know they are comfortable with that remint rate and we will get the 1.2% burn tax back .
To be clear, a lot of the viewpoints people keep repeating about LUNC being “destroyed” are largely heavily repeated viewpoints promoted by some validators that have been forced a lot here and on Discord to the point that some people believe that it is the gospel truth.
Given that the 0.2% has been around for nearly 3 months??What benefit exactly has it brought??? Any dApps that have launched since it was activated apart from Moonshot??? That entire period we have burnt just as much as the three weeks of the 1.2% burn !!
The 0.2% burn tax has not helped us much.
Please note the 1.2% burn tax is also temporary. When we reach parity with LUNA V.2 we can talk about reducing it to 0.5% or 0.6% to entice the dApps on the Luna V2 side to launch on our side.
That however may be 4-6 months away. So for now can we please focus on the burns and get updates on other developments until that point in time then we can agree to lower it then and only then.
Only when the dApp owners are ready, that is after V.23 is launched and deployed ,then we can talk about lowering it to half a percent./ half the current rate based on community preferences.
1 Like
Classy have you given up on this proposal and changed your mind? Are you supporting this anymore? Are you going to put this up for vote?
Exactly! Since we did not see any benefit volume-wise (volume increase) when we reduced the tax to 0.2% from 1.2% then why not put it back to 1.2%. That’s the proof that the tax rate we had selected DOES NOT affect the volume. There is always a price to pay with any move, but ultimately the problem with the chain that we need to correct is ONE HYPERINFLATION.
As another community member said:
You are choosing to see things out of context, there is more to the story:
The global economy start going into hyperinflation (the equivalent of LUNC mint to 6T) when the US housing market bubble popped back in 2008 with the collapse of the Lehman Brothers. Central Banks (Globally) intervened to absorb the shock by printing more money in the form of QE and reducing interest rates (some going into negative territory). The financial impacts of that crash lasted around 8 years however we were hit with COVID-19 which extenuated the problem which means QE along with low-interest rates had to stay a bit longer. Soon after we were coming back out of COVID comes the Invasion of Russia into Ukraine…however the market start to improve, since people were able to consume again, and that improvement (as expected) came with high inflation since national currencies’ valuation was close to toilet paper and you needed a lot of toilet paper to buy a packet of chewing gums. The Central Banks went on with their usual method to curb inflation by reversing the cause of it which is printing more money.
…and here we are QE is taken off the cards and interest rates are increasing all around. Unfortunately, it is happening faster because that last problem is still with us causing pressure on the global economy.
1 Like
And just to avoid confusion, what I mean with the above is:
The Central Banks went on with their usual method to curb inflation by reversing the cause of it by reducing the amount of minted currency and therefore money supply in circulation a.k.a hardening the currency.
For LUNC, our hardening equation is to reverse the hyperinflation event results (minted coins supply glut), and Burn is (currently) the only weapon we have to achieve that.
1 Like
Sounds like that analysis was partly correct, in actual fact reality was a bit worse than expected!
Based on Binances latest announcement, sounds like any (not just the 50%) form of clawback on their burned coins wasn’t received positively.
Thankfully they are 100% committed to the Burn effort.
1 Like
It looks like Classy may have given up on this proposal for the 1.2%. He has gone quiet about it and deleted this tweet from earlier.
It’s been 9 days since he posted the proposal.
I suggest someone else take this on and put this up for vote with the correct parameter proposal. I can assist with funding the vote if needed.
The 0.6% proposal was rejected and that vote is ended. We should see if we can get the 1.2% passed now, as we should be focusing on burns especially after what happened recently with Binance.
I believe the 1.2% with a 90%/10% split of burn/community pool with zero minting will be good hype for LUNC and lead to good price gains and burns. We can then apply pressure on exchanges to burn off-chain (and Binance to do more also), as we will be burning too on-chain properly so we have good credibility, and we can whitelist their internal wallets of the major exchanges to assist in that.
I would like the 1.2% to come up for a vote and see if the community supports it or not. I don’t believe it was fair only giving it a 3 week run. I was very disappointed when it was overturned. Thank you for your consideration.
I don’t believe a jump back to 1.2% will be good. There will be more fud to LUNC than benefit IMO. I agree 3weeks was not enough time to let that settle but believe that somewhere in the middle, possibly around .7-.8% would be a happy medium. It’s less than a the full % and if people quickly calculate that it’s less than 1%, 'cause that’s quick math, they may not be deterred.
It does seem like the repeal of the .5 remint, and Ed’s proposal that things might be going in the right direction. We need on set of hands on the wheel and patience. WAGMI!
@ClassyCrypto Is that the case or is there something else going on in the background that you’re waiting for before actioning this?
1 Like
I just listened to @ClassyCrypto in a youtube video. He stated that @ek826 has suggested a better solution for his 1.2 proposal. Hence he will not be doing the 1.2% burn exactly anymore.
Start watching at 2:20 in video Terra Luna Classic How UNITY Will Help US Succeed! | ADDRESSING YouTubers - YouTube
The “BIG BOYS” advised him. Hope it does not sink the impetus for burning and caused another price implosion.
3 Likes