Signaling Proposals around 3 Optional Features in the next release

#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.

2 Likes

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:

8 Likes

:+1: great lets go

1 Like

I see your point in #1. Very reasonable. But, I see #1 is transactional. We are not bowing down to binance. We want to burn and binance offered to help with a condition. And now we are giving binance that condition with #1. This is where it needs to be. Voted on.

2 Likes

It’s a bad trade that’s heavily skewed in favor of Binance. Their burns drive quick pumps-and-dumpps, not organic growth. And the burn itself is trivial, it’s not even putting a dent in LUNC’s hyperinflated supply (it can’t - despite wasting millions of dollars). I’m not completely against whitelisting Binance, but IMHO if we’re going to sell ourselves it should be a for a massive payout that’ll guarantee enormous growth for the chain.

Like I said above, why not ask Binnace to “lend” us 10 of their engineers for a year or two? CZ doesn’t even have to pay us directly - just have Binance start up their own LUNC Task Force, and work alongside our L1JTF. There’s a mountain of work that needs doing on the chain, so having more developers would go a long way toward blitzing through Ed’s original roadmap (the one he posted in his Medium article a while ago).

Trading the whitelist for pointless burns is silly, we’re only making scalpers and volume-traders rich.

Shalom! :pray:

5 Likes

It’d be also great to know if Binance will return to 100% fees burnt if whitelisted @ek826 ?

2 Likes

Looks good, thanks for the hard work.

@dfunk made a good suggestion too about sending to the distribution module which might be worth looking at.

@RabbiJebediah Whitelisting the Binance wallets allows us to build a stronger relationship and puts us in a much stronger position to negotiate with with them in the future. And they’ve always supported LUNC, it’s not much to give IMO.

2 Likes

I think there are important considerations here.
For us to reduce circulating LUNC the easiest way is through increasing staking. To incentivise this additional staking which arguably attracts additional liquidity as well, i think we need to consider sustainable inputs to the ‘staking pool’ to keep LUNC a desirable investment/ staking currency.
Also anything that adds liquidity also increases the security of the chain.
.
This aside concise and easy to read proposals. Thank you.

3 Likes

On the whitelisting wallets for exchanges: Exchanges use hot and cold wallets to help internal security. Those wallets are still on-chain wallet accounts. That means that they would be contributing not just in the burning of fees (which they have agreed to), and their users contributing to burns by moving coins on and off the exchange, but also every time the exchange move coins between internal wallets for security purposes. Right now, they are most likely minimizing those internal exchanges between wallets, and relying on insurance policies. This is the reason it was asked for (which seems reasonable).

4 Likes

3 Yes for me.

1 Like

Is it possible to illustrate the increase in staking rewards based on this?

Great, that’s what most of the people have been waiting for.

The 3rd feature is a must until the CP’s $ value is sufficient since the fee increase will not be enough at this point in time IMO. We can always change the parameter to 0 afterwards.

For those who say that we should not honor binance’s request i will just share this:

Thank you for the hard work!

4 Likes

Unsure with option 1, but either way the Binance burn is popular with community members so will likely pass any vote.

I agree with the other two options.

Thank you Ed and Team.

1 Like

I like features 2 and 3, and another burn wallet in necessary…
Thank you so much for your great work Professor Kim!

2 Likes

There is no doubt all 3 yes.

1 Like


Was glad to vote YES with my JESUSisLORD validator on these much awaited for proposals! Thank you L1 team! Bring on the Binance burns!

4 Likes

Mantappu Jiwa!