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.
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.
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.
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+.
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
Of course my proposal is going up. 0.5% if it passes is just a stepping stone to my proposal. LUNC needs to be fixed. Of course I’ll be fighting for my Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+ to pass and be successfully implemented, and I will continue to.
Here you go WAGNER, read it: Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+ - #62 by JESUSisLORD. Oh and while you’re at it be sure to link me your criticisms of RedlineDrifters proposal which also relied on help to reach out to exchanges? Please link any comments of yours criticising his plan for reaching out to exchanges (with a far more complex plan), so you can prove to the readers here you’re not a hypocrite. I’ll wait…
You also plagiarized his split to distribution module …
Which means you don’t care abou the chain stability at all, it s all about satisfying your big ego
Also, o have no critics towards Redline … it’s a complex plan which has real incentives to CEX to join the bandwagon, while trying to restore the chain to its glory days. Your plan, on the other side, it’s only about keeping LUNC as a meme so you and all post-crash holders can have a profit.
You’re wrong WAGNER, my plan will be great for the chain.
No, that part in my flowchart was included as options where the 0.3% on-chain funding could go, for 100% of the 0.3% to the CP, to the distribution module (which dfunk proposed), or to CAP the CP and overflow to the CP (my proposal). Neither the distribution module nor the CAP on the CP was included in the governance proposals of my plan.
My plan’s governance votes as laid out in the original post only accounted for 100% to the CP. I am all too glad for dfunk’s proposals to pass and signalled my support for them as soon as they were posted on agora. Where the proceeds of the 0.3% tax COULD go was foreshadowed in the flowchart to show future OPTIONS and that I was considering the oracle pool. There was nothing wrong with that. I clearly gave credit to dfunk for his dapp smart contract exemption, as it was a governance proposal in my plan.
You’re an evil guy WAGNER and a clear hypocrite. My plan has incentives and my plan is far easier for exchanges to implement. You just hate it because you know it can make LUNC pump in price and will be good for the chain, you hate burns, and you love minting, and oppose my plan because I want to benefit LUNC investors. Why don’t you care about post-crash LUNC investors WAGNER? This shows your deceptive motive in attacking my plan. You don’t want LUNC investors to succeed and make money. What’s more to say?
No, I have a proper plan, I have incentives, and we’ll see how the community votes in June. You don’t read or comprehend the plan which is evident by all your ignorant comments against it so far. You can read the plan again Tonu if you forgot its features: Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+.
Yes I’ve already reached out to all active validators with contact information, and will again prior to vote. I know I need enough of their support. I’ll continue to advocate for my plan and see how the vote goes in June.