Are you daft?
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.
Tax had only a passing effect of generating hype. Not lasting volume.
Youâre 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? Youâre playing games.
By the way thereâs 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 werenât better, burns were low, utility didnât come, and price continually crashed. Anti-taxxers have greatly harmed the chain, and continue to do so.
Itâs all plain to see. Your spin hides NOTHING.
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 itâs 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 didnât generate any new volume. 
Data is there. You just like to present it with false backstory.
I didnât 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. Itâs all obvious for all to see Tonu. Youâre not going to be able to hide it anymore. People are getting over having a useless âunknown dapps burning the supplyâ plan for over 6 months. Itâs 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 shouldnât 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.
Your plan is excellent!!! Congrats
My claim is that off-chain burns will be great for LUNC, if we can achieve them. If we donât achieve them my plan is a failure. Iâm not just wanting the tax on-chain. Thatâs 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. Thatâs 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 hasnât, 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 thatâs what Iâm pushing for and weâll 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), whatâs 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 dfunkâs 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 wonât be up initially. Thatâs it, dfunkâs props donât 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 getâs those passed beforehand thatâs great. You can see about approaching exchanges under my plan in the OP thereâs a particular Q&A that deals with it: Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+.
Donât need to explain that again, Iâm 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.
Iâve read it and never found onĂ© single line mentioning your own personal actions - you wanna hand the job to L1TF
Dude, where have you been the last 10+ months? Thatâs all LUNC is. Literally.
FYI WAGNER, my prop came up before his, with the exception of his great idea to exempt dapp smart contracts which came earlier and was his idea, which I credited him for.
My prop came up on 19 March, with the 80/20 split. His came up on March 20. Guess I was first then wasnât I WAGNER? Vision Plan to achieve $1+ LUNC vs
New Economic Policy for Terra Classic: Set of 4 Proposals to Align Incentives.
Also Iâm the one who put up the 75/25% prop to governance which the agora was up on 4 March? Parameter Change: Adjust Tax AnteHandler to 75/25% Split from 90/10%.
Also the tax split and the basis of my plan was laid out in my validator roadmap on Feb 15 JESUSisLORD Validator Roadmap - Vision for Luna Classic (LUNC) - 15 February 2023.
I already explained this to you in my proposal thread WAGNER, Final Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+, you just want to baselessly attack me.
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 Iâll 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 youâre 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 youâre not a hypocrite. Iâll waitâŠ
You also plagiarized his split to distribution module âŠ
Which means you donât care abou the chain stability at all, it s all about satisfying your big ego
Also, o have no critics towards Redline ⊠itâs 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, itâs only about keeping LUNC as a meme so you and all post-crash holders can have a profit.
Youâre 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 planâs governance votes as laid out in the original post only accounted for 100% to the CP. I am all too glad for dfunkâs 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.
Youâre 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 donât you care about post-crash LUNC investors WAGNER? This shows your deceptive motive in attacking my plan. You donât want LUNC investors to succeed and make money. Whatâs more to say?
Ya, totally great.
Itâs just you lack a proper plan, incentives and the support of the Community.
Well, whatever the plan is, even if you have our support and the support of the community, you still need to get through to the other validators.
I am aware that you are a validator as well but to pass this vote, your vote wonât be sufficient. It will require a lot more votes.
Even if the entire community votes, I do not know whether that is equal to or less than the validator votes.
3 of the top validators make up about 25% (of the 100%) of votes if I am not mistaken. It might be a little more or less. Anyway, you would have got the point.
The point is that without these 3 top validators voting YES on your prop, it wonât pass governance.
P.S. Both TR and L1JTF had to re-up the props after talking to the validators first. They wonât pass it otherwise. Go and talk to them.
I wonât talk to them cause I got problems. Even my family says so. I will not budge from my position of decentralisation personally. But you can definitely try.
No, I have a proper plan, I have incentives, and weâll see how the community votes in June. You donât 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 Iâve already reached out to all active validators with contact information, and will again prior to vote. I know I need enough of their support. Iâll continue to advocate for my plan and see how the vote goes in June.
Yes. Well. Donât have high hopes, Chris.
Whatever happens is the Gods will, right.
His plan is not great, itâs excellent.
What is this quarrel about? Because I do not understand. First it was about taxes, then L1, then something else?
