Indeed, now am curious to see what @ek826 is going to suggest about it.
I hope he’s not referring to the Refactor Burn AnteHandler and deprecate Seigniorage Reward Policy proposal
1 Like
Many of us have failed to realize the psychological effect of burning on the Lunc community. The way forward ,should not all be about development. While building the chain and having dApps sound fantastic, one must not forget what appeals to the ordinary investor. Imo, that is burning. If @ek826 and @Zaradar believed that building is 100% fool proof their payout would be stated in LUNC and not Fiat.
We must never think that these “Geniuses” are the repository of all knowledge. We made a mistake with TR. We dont want to make another mistake now. Binance believes so much in burning, that he slapped the community on the wrist. Next time, the whole body will be slapped.
3 Likes
The video confirms Classy is not proceeding with the 1.2% proposal and has reportedly been advised by Ed “The big boys”, to go with his proposal (50/50 on-chain). This is a disappointment but is not unexpected. Unfortunately influencers change their mind A LOT.
Again I ask if anyone else is willing to put the 1.2% for a vote? We should have the vote. 0.2% has been given months to run with poor results. 0.6% was rejected in a vote recently. Now we should try 1.2%, what we should have kept from the beginning. If it’s rejected by the community then so be it, at least we can try.
I have to watch that video again. I am not certain about this.
If 0.6% was rejected why do you think 1.2% will be accepted?
1 Like