The rules are the same as they were before.
Your ignorance in not understanding them is unfortunate, but doesn’t change the fact that - Yeah, you fall under those rules.
Can a grown man grasp it now?
Oh man… You li(a)rs!
You fck-tards!
Now… You burn boys are gone bro…
Gone…
You guys have made this governance and this blockchain A JOKE.
YOU BURN BOYS ARE LYING NOT ONLY TO THE IMMEDIATE COMMUNITY BUT TO THE ENTIRE WORLD WHEN THE TRUTH IS RIGHT HERE.
You retards will never be able to centralize this.
Centralization will remain a dream for you a-holes forever.
1 Like
My chart is true and legit, and I didn’t lie whatsoever, I responded here: Fckd Up Burn Boys and Validators - #24 by JESUSisLORD.
You anti-taxxers are freaking out someone’s calling you out on your lies and damaging grip over this chain. I’ll keep doing it.
They are desperately trying to distract from the failed tax reduction, which is clearly visible:
1 Like
Why isn’t the chart showing the date when 1.2 was implemented? It wouldn’t look so good then right? September 15th the 1.2% Parameter change prop passed and price has been going down ever since 
1 Like
The chart shows when the code for the distribution of the 1.2% passed on 3 August 2022, and the price pumped shortly after due to the hope of off-chain burns. Then the tax was fudded to death before implementation with big whales publicly shorting and influencers saying the chain would d-ie, it recovered, then the vote to remove it was introduced 2 weeks later, thereafter the price has continually crashed. The spike to $0.0006 was mainly due to the 1.2% burn tax and hope of off-chain adoption. Proponents of 0.2% promised higher volumes, more burns, utility, but none appeared and the price crashed continually to where we are today. The 1.2% was a success, it led to a huge pump in the price, and after its removal the price has only crashed continually. It’s clear to see.
4 Likes
Entirely incorrect. Staking came early September.
Burn tax prop by Ed came in October.
The price increase was partly staking and partly the hype of a burn tax.
But as always - you buy the rumour and sell the news. Since news will tax you.
Your graph is showing a fallacy - a misinterpretation of a timeline you invented.
2 Likes
And proponents of the 1.2 promise offchain burns, both are full of shit 
Just remove the stupid tax
2 Likes
There is no fallacy.
Prop #4159 for the distribution of code for the 1.2% burn tax passed on 3 August 2022, which is the first arrow on my chart.
This is what I said, which has no misrepresentation whatsoever.
You want Zaradar’s terrible parity idea with no burn tax? Why don’t you just go to LUNA V2 if you want no burn tax and plenty of dapps? LUNC needs to focus on burns to burn our 6.85 trillion hyperinflated supply. Pushing for off-chain burns is a good idea especially since the last effort was attacked ruthlessly from the start with whales publicly shorting, influencers fudding, and only had 2 weeks on-chain before the prop was up to remove it.
2 Likes
The decreases were due to the fact that people expected a miracle and received a small burn in the 1st and 2nd cases. I’ve marked the voting times for each proposal here. Concerning the combustion tax. The first 3 proposals are the signaling proposals and the introduction of the combustion mechanism (3568,4095 4159). The rest is changing parameters. The next 2 is 1.2% tax(4661,4793). The last 6 is 0.2% tax(5234). Both taxes failed investors’ expectations. BOTH. But for sure (the graph shows it) that it would be better if the fuel consumption was higher. The 0.2% tax was supposed to make up for the volume. HE DID NOT DO IT. It’s been a year and there is no sensible proposition other than repeg USTC and burning LUNC because of it. You just talk instead of smoking. both sides. Burning other than tax will be in a few years (L2, repeg, others) if all goes well and Lunc won’t be bankrupt until then. Investors are not buying LUNC and will not be buying this worthless shcoin for them.
1 Like
He will d(ie arguing that it was due to burn tax only, not staking and the potential chain revival… he won’t accept that the burn hype was not killed by the tax reduction, but by CZ tweets and non-adoption of the tax…. and he also won’t accept that the price is dipping due to bear market conditions, lack of utility, and validators/delegators d(umping their fees/rewards.
But hey, His plan is excellent!
1 Like
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