I think this is a more or less accurate description of what happened.
The taxes have failed the expectations of investors.
Wagner as usual you don’t read and speak nonsense, see the word “mainly”.
The tax was attacked from the get-go claiming it would k-ill the chain, have zero volume, whales were publicly shorting posting about it on Twitter, and influential people FUDDING the tax and calling for selling. CZ was initially reluctant, but offered the 1.2% opt-in, fee burn and said that the 1.2% burn tax could work if all exchanges agreed to implement at the same time. Instead of giving the effort and the tax a fair shot it was attacked continually and the vote was up to remove it after only 2 weeks on-chain. I witnessed it all you can’t re-write the history Wagner. Since the 0.2% tax was put in the volumes are low, burns low, utility little and price continually crashing for over 6 months. You can look up and see the chart which clearly demonstrates it. The truth is there for those interested. Once they removed the 1.2% the community was fractured and divided. It was a terrible mistake. I’ll continue to advocate for the return of the 1.2% burn tax.
5 Likes
ask mirror and wormhole or aru about scammy governance, hes been here a long time.
1 Like
Now there is a good offer of 0.5%. We should agree to these proposals. We will attract investors. At least a bit.
1 Like
Here is you blindly denying CZ saying that 1.2 wouldn’t work. What has changed since then?!? Volume went drastically down, which means less burns. The real timeline of events is right here in your face … but again you are simply denying it and accommodating facts that fits your narrative.
If you are not misleading people into believing in your narrative to attract delegations to your validator and capitalize yourself, what you are trying to do?!? Turn Terra Classic into the first blockchain guided by divine providence???
1 Like
You have selectively edited the tweet Wagner. You need to also show my quoted tweet to show my full response to that picture. Here it is:
As to the image and what you said, CZ is wrong. Whales would trade the 1.2% burn tax. Even with low volumes (the volumes would be huge, not low if we got 1.2% off-chain), we can burn billions of LUNC per day. The hype that led to the $0.0006 pump will return even greater. CZ needs to be convinced. He said in the 23 September 22 AMA that the 1.2% burn tax could work if all exchanges agreed to implement it at the same time. This is part of my plan to achieve a consensus of participating exchanges to launch simultaneously. Exchanges need to be convinced. We made good progress in only 2 weeks of the 1.2% on-chain before the vote to remove it came up, despite the FUD. We should give it a proper shot. I believe we can convince CZ as we have better incentives and a better plan than earlier (My Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+ Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+.
I’m misleading nobody. My plan and intentions are clearly stated in my Validator Roadmap and my Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+.
2 Likes
September the 9th when was we had that maximum of 0.0006
Staking had gone live prior. It was another month when burn actually was introduced.
By that time the price was cut to half in reaching high of 0.00027
Tax had no effect on the freefall and volume remained stagnant for a while.
Nothing of your timeline is true. It was simply hype and the tax didn’t uphold it.
CZ has never been against the tax. And he was talking about it. but he was worried that 1.2% was a lot he was worried about. But again 0.2 is not enough personally I have always considered 0.5 to 0.8
Sometimes you take CZ’s words too much to heart. Before this big pump (I won’t find it anymore) but he did a fat action. He put a picture of scrable game where LUNC was written in the middle and set so that the price goes up. In the shape of a chart. CZ is the dealer lowers the price, buys and pumps.
1 Like
Wrong Tonu, I already clearly explained my chart but you can’t see it.
The price pumped shortly after this prop passed, which is the first arrow on my chart:
I was there looking forward to the 1.2% implementation, this was a huge factor due to the hype of 1.2% burns off-chain and its near implementation on-chain.
Deny it all you want my chart is clear and accurate. The 1.2% was the major reason for the pump to $0.0006, not staking. The removal of the 1.2% is clearly and accurately on my chart and we can all see how far lower we’ve come. People don’t like my chart because it shows how dumb their anti-tax views are.
3 Likes
Are you daft?
The price had a miniscule move from the established low of 0.0001 and it jumped to 0.0013 and then dropped back down at the end of the month.
Once staking went live in September - volume and price increase came in.
And by the time tax was live in October - Volume alongside the price was already dipping.
You can make fairytales on Twitter, but data is immutable and does not lie.
Tax had only a passing effect of generating hype. Not lasting volume.
You’re playing dumb Tonu. The pump to $0.0006 was already well under-way before September. The pump began on 20th August from a low of $0.00008530. By September 1st the price had already reached $0.000298. You think you can brush of that 349% increase as nothing? You’re playing games.
By the way there’s 31 days in August Tonu, did you strategically crop that figure out of your list? The LUNC price reached $0.0002407 that day 31st August. My chart is Kucoin LUNC/USDT daily.
So just in August the price rose from the beginning of the bull move 282%.
You say that was all due to something that happened in September?
Deny it all you want, spin the facts, deceitfully edit your information, my chart shows what happened clearly.
The 1.2% tax code being passed on 3 August 2022, and its soon implementation with the hope of off-chain burns was THE major reason for the pump.
The removal of the 1.2% tax to 0.2% killed the hype in our chain, destroyed the unity, and investors fled. The lies were revealed: volumes weren’t better, burns were low, utility didn’t come, and price continually crashed. Anti-taxxers have greatly harmed the chain, and continue to do so.
It’s all plain to see. Your spin hides NOTHING.
2 Likes
Your ignorance is hard to watch.
You have data. Check it.
Oh, so what do we see? Yes. Volume is building alongside the hype. Then plateaus at the high. Starts to gradually fall off. Tax goes live in October and whadda ya know - volume is dropping off. By November it’s rather steadily down to the 100-200m. Some days it spikes due to whatever liquidations from whales or parties that exited or looked for an entry.
Nothing suggesting the tax itself bringing in any actual volume increase.
How did you do no DYOR?
The hype was the reason alongside with staking. The actual tax actually didn’t generate any new volume. 
Data is there. You just like to present it with false backstory.
I didn’t say the tax implementation itself on-chain caused the pump Tonu, as the pump had already occurred by then. You quoted what I said, which is not what you claim I said. The pump was mostly due to the hope of the 1.2% burn tax being implemented off-chain. I was there I remember. This is the major reason for the pump, the 700% move. Removing the tax to 0.2% did nothing good, and we can see the results from the chart. It’s all obvious for all to see Tonu. You’re not going to be able to hide it anymore. People are getting over having a useless “unknown dapps burning the supply” plan for over 6 months. It’s been a total waste of time. We should never have given up on off-chain burns after 2 weeks. The community was deceived. Liars lied. They are still lying saying the same things.
If we raise the tax and push for the 1.2% off-chain, if we succeed it will be amazing. If not within 6 months at least we have more burns and funding for the chain (15x increase from the tax). With dapps smart contract exemption there is no reason why we shouldn’t raise the tax.
3 Likes
You seem to have forgotten what made folks giddy then.
TC was in ruins. A group of volunteers suddenly emerges in May. Working for free. Guidance. Reassurance. Lunc to a dollar by end of '22.
Burn tax was only a part of it. Not the whole narrative.
You claim tax can bring back volume - data shows otherwise.
Your plan is excellent!!! Congrats
My claim is that off-chain burns will be great for LUNC, if we can achieve them. If we don’t achieve them my plan is a failure. I’m not just wanting the tax on-chain. That’s not enough. I believe a higher tax on-chain will be better for LUNC, but the core goal of my plan is getting the 1.2% burn tax off-chain on major exchanges. My plan is requesting 6 months to achieve it. If it cannot, the tax changes can be rolled back. The on-chain must match the burn tax we seek off-chain. Hence 1.5% on-chain (1.2% burn tax, 0.3% funding), 1.2% burn tax off-chain. I believe we can achieve it under my plan with its features and incentives plus community pressure.
The Terra Rebels, the chain being recovered with staking was all part of it, but the 1.2% burn tax was the way people believed we could really burn the supply and reverse the effects of the LUNC death spiral and hyperinflation. It was the core goal to achieve and the hope of major price increase by massive burning of the supply. That’s what I was hoping for back then and many others. That was the major factor which caused the $0.0006 run. I believe we should have kept the 1.2% burn tax and tried to convince exchanges longer (not the 2 weeks on-chain before the vote was up to remove it). It was also continually harassed from the get-go. Reducing the tax to 0.2% was promised to bring great volumes, burns and utility but it hasn’t, and the price has just gone down and down as my chart shows. We should go back to the 1.2% burn tax and give it a proper shot for 6 months, to see if we can get it off-chain. Well that’s what I’m pushing for and we’ll see if the community agrees or not soon.
3 Likes
Since dFunk already put his four proposals up for voting (which you copied into your vision plan, btw), what’s you plan moving forward? You gonna push for another tax increase? You gonna push for a different ante-handler split? Are you approaching CEX to gauge their sentiment towards the off-chain taxation? Or you gonna keep ranting over here and Twitter just to increase your commission fees?
My plan is still going up in June. I voted YES on all dfunk’s props. If his props pass I will have two props initially. One signalling prop for the plan and the second prop parameter change on-chain tax to 1.5%. The push for off-chain burns begins then as we have the 1.2% burn tax on-chain.The final governance prop is to whitelist/exempt exchange wallets only if they agree to off-chain burns, so won’t be up initially. That’s it, dfunk’s props don’t conflict with mine.
Wagner if you read my prop you would see the 80/20% split and the dapp smart contract exemption is part of it. If dfunk get’s those passed beforehand that’s great. You can see about approaching exchanges under my plan in the OP there’s a particular Q&A that deals with it: Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+.
1 Like
Don’t need to explain that again, I’m pretty much aware of his prop and which parts you incorporated into your plan
So even if dFunk passes, you still gonna push for yet another tax increase proposal?!? What message do you think people would get from this behavior??? The most obvious one is that we are a disfunctional an unorganized community, with no clear development vision, going back and forth between props.
I’ve read it and never found oné single line mentioning your own personal actions - you wanna hand the job to L1TF