Signaling Proposals around 3 Optional Features in the next release

This describes three signaling governance proposals that we are seeking consensus for in the next release (v1.1.0). These three items are all OPTIONAL. Their inclusion or exclusion will be determined by the outcome of the three governance proposals.

Please note that you are not voting on a particular piece of code at this time, but rather whether or not you want to see these features included in the next release. If the signaling proposal passes governance, there will be an additional agora discussion and subsequent governance vote on the actual upgrade code implementation.

Optional Features Needing Consensus Governance
The first two optional features have been requested by Binance. On December 28th, 2022, Binance made changes to the voluntary burn of Terra Classic trading fees as described in the following announcement.

In order for Binance to continue the burn of half their fees, the first two items were requested to be implemented in our next release. The third item is a feature that is independent of Binance and the result has no bearing on their request.

Optional Feature # 1 - Wallet Exemption to On-chain Tax (Binance Request 1/2)
Binance has requested that the internal movement between Binance owned wallets be exempt from the burn tax (currently set to 0.2%). A list of Binance owned wallets has been provided to the community via the above announcement. It was confirmed with Binance that movement to and from Binance wallets will still be taxed. This means deposits and withdrawals are not exempt, but rather only the internal movements between wallets will be exempt for their internal security purposes. This first governance proposal is seeking consensus around this request from Binance. The implementation of this whitelist feature will be parameterized, with the initial list set to the provided Binance list. Thus, if this feature is accepted to be adopted, future changes to this whitelist can be controlled by the community in a governance parameter change proposal.

Optional Feature # 2 - Separate Burn Wallet Exempt from Seigniorage (Binance Request 2/2)
While seigniorage has been “turned off”, there is no guarantee that it could not be changed in the future. Thus, Binance has requested that a separate burn wallet be created where any LUNC manually sent to this burn wallet, be excluded from the seigniorage remint calculation done at the end of every epoch. Basically, any LUNC sent to this wallet is burned, and stays burned. This second burn wallet will be publicized and could be used by anyone in the community for this purpose. The second governance proposal is seeking consensus around the creation of this second burn wallet.

Optional Feature # 3 - Burn Tax Split to Community Pool
This is the third and final optional feature we are seeking consensus upon in the next release. Previously, the community utilized the seigniorage RewardWeight parameter to remint a portion of the burned supply to the community pool. This was confusing to many people in the community. The third governance proposal is seeking consensus around the creation of a new parameter that does not utilize the seigniorage remint policy, but has an independent ability to directly send a percentage of the on-chain tax to the community pool. The initialization of this parameter will be 10% community pool, 90% burn as noted in governance proposal #11111, which was the consensus before the Binance requests to turn off seigniorage (and are being alternatively handled by feature #2).

In summary, there will be 3 signaling governance proposals immediately put forth to gain consensus around whether the community would like to see these optional features included in the next release. The first 2 would be required for Binance to continue burning half of their trading fees. The third is independent and has no bearing on Binance’s request.

Any feature that passes the governance signaling proposal will be subject to another final vote for the community to accept. Thus, the signaling vote at this time is not an acceptance or rejection of the technical adoption of these features, but rather a question of should they even be included for consideration in the next release.

Finally, if all three optional features fail to pass the signaling governance, there will still be a release v1.1.0 put forth for voting that contains consensus breaking required security updates, including a patch recently provided by Jacob Gadikian.


Thx for your hard work.


I like all 3! Let’s go!


to dentro bora votar sim nas tres !!!

Yes and yes and yes!


Thanks a lot Professor Kim.


I like features 1 and 3. But i disagree with another burn wallet, because we will have to look up for two wallets instead of one. Besides, any moment we could also use this second burn wallet to remint if community wants to, so whats the point of split?. Finally, second feature sounds like Binance dont trust us so we must show we neither trust us so we use another burn wallet, kind of odd, isnt?

Hey Ed, with regards to this I had a suggestion - instead of splitting the Burn Tax to CP, you could look at splitting the burn tax to the Distribution Module (terra1jv65s3grqf6v6jl3dp4t6c9t9rk99cd8pm7utl).

The distribution module already splits 50% of the funds to CP.

So instead of a 90-10 ratio, you could perhaps start with a 80-20 ratio with 20% being split to the distribution module → which would in effect split 10% to the CP, while splitting 10% to the stakers, leading to a broader community alignment.


Only if we increase the burn tax for #3. The other 2 are fine.

1 Like

Im happy to support.

Agree on the 2nd burn wallet for anyone to contribute burns too without the risk of their donation being reminted. A good security measure.

10% to cp from the burn tax seems acceptable even to a person such as myslef who wants a bigger emphasis put on burning.

Binance whitelist is necessary for them to continue their buy-back-and-burn scheme which is a major factor imoroving our price action. This needs to be revived immediately.

Once we resume the Binance Burns - these questions remain, imo:

  1. Will they consider 100% of their fees burned again and on what condition?
  2. If we calculated all the Binance funds that were reminted and sent them to the burn wallet directly to remedy the mistake of introducing minting (i have a prop ready for this). Would this be enough of an incentive for them to resume 100% fee burns?
  3. If to achieve point no2 we would require to raise the antehandler split - i think this would be justified. Imo we could raise this split temporarily to collect necessary funds.

Curious what you all think


I think I like these. I do have questions as a self proclaimed dummy.

I believe burning is still needed in a big way to get that circulating supply down. My first question would be it its possible, as @Thunder1677 stated, to increase the “burn tax” if a portion doesn’t actually get burned? The issue I see here is hitting the sweet spot of how much it would be hiked. IMO the drop from 1.2 to .2 was FAR too drastic and now will be a struggle to try to increase it at all.

Second, and here’s where the real smarts likely shine through, could gas fees be split for the community and/or oracle pool(s)?

I just hope to find a way to avoid the optics of burned LUNC being “reminted”.

It all seems good, positive, and maybe we get some tweaks to #3 before the implementation vote.

Thanks a bunch @ek826


I agree with all three points.

The first two because they are direct requests from our main burning partner. And that condition must be respected if we want to continue to be partners with BINANCE in the future.

The third point, I agree, with the caveat raised by @dfunk .

Thank you Ed.


I am in full support of #1 and #2 .
With regards to #3, by whitelisting Binance (and possibly other CEXes in future in exchange for burning fees) we will see a significant decline in the burn rate. So even if we do a 10% to the Community Pool, the amount(10) will end up being pretty low, lower than we are getting right now .The only way we can counteract this is by raising the burn tax rate to compensate for both the current and future burn rate and to ensure that the community pool gets sufficient funds.
And also preferably, the increase will go hand in hand with @dfunk 's suggestion


yes for all 3 signaling proposals.

1 Like

#3 is the best choice, Why is the ustc not updated, it is possible to link the purchase of lunc to the ustc and fix the ustc price at its current price, no problem, then the ustc and the lunc are burned together, after which it can upgrade the ustc to a gradually higher price of $1

With regards of feature #3 I would suggest to increase the taxe rate to a range between 0,40%-0,60% before the tax split.
We reduced the tax rate from 1,2% to 0,2% without any significant impact on the daily volumes. @ek826 stated a few months ago, by using the following metaphor, that the best way to understand which slot machine pays more than others inside a casino, is to test them all without getting stuck with any special one.
We tried the 1,2%, then the 0,2%.
Maybe it’s time to reconsider a small increase.

1 Like

I fully support.


1 and 2 are fine. No for 3 because the burn tax was enacted to burn only. Changing its purpose is wrong. Put forth another proposal to fund the community pool.

A hard NO on this one. :-1: LUNC is supposed to be a community-owned decentralized chain - bowing down to Binance’s requests just to receive a pointless burn every couple of weeks is a complete antithesis of that concept. If Binance really wants to help then they can spin up an L1+L2 engineering group who’d work alongside our own L1JTF, or they could offer rewards/bounties to external devs who’d be willing to build on LUNC, or they could greenlight Ed’s requests for additional funding. They’ve done none of that. Their “burns” are just a publicity gimmick. IMHO we shouldn’t whitelist them; if exceptions are to be made for Binance, then Binance ought to offer something equally valuable in return.

Sure, sounds reasonable. YES to this one! :+1:

Currently undecided on this one, I need to do more reading.

Shalom! :pray:


:+1: great lets go

1 Like