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
Itâs a bad trade thatâs heavily skewed in favor of Binance. Their burns drive quick pumps-and-dumpps, not organic growth. And the burn itself is trivial, itâs not even putting a dent in LUNCâs hyperinflated supply (it canât - despite wasting millions of dollars). Iâm not completely against whitelisting Binance, but IMHO if weâre going to sell ourselves it should be a for a massive payout thatâll guarantee enormous growth for the chain.
Like I said above, why not ask Binnace to âlendâ us 10 of their engineers for a year or two? CZ doesnât even have to pay us directly - just have Binance start up their own LUNC Task Force, and work alongside our L1JTF. Thereâs a mountain of work that needs doing on the chain, so having more developers would go a long way toward blitzing through Edâs original roadmap (the one he posted in his Medium article a while ago).
Trading the whitelist for pointless burns is silly, weâre only making scalpers and volume-traders rich.
Shalom! 
5 Likes
Itâd 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 theyâve always supported LUNC, itâs 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 âstaking poolâ 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, thatâs what most of the people have been waiting for.
The 3rd feature is a must until the CPâs $ 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 binanceâs 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 necessaryâŚ
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!
Quick question @ek826 - why are the 3 props already up on the Station for voting?
The thread itself is only 10 hours old at this point. I mean we all know how validators will vote, but by not respecting the 7-day minimal limit youâre pretty much robbing people from seeing the discussion here, participating, and engaging in governance the way itâs supposed to unfold. Especially given itâs the middle of a work week, so most folks arenât even aware of this thread (or the proposals).
I really dislike the way important props fielded by the L1JTF get pushed through governance like this.
TR did the same for their $150,000 payout, and even they waited 2 full days from Agora to Station.
Why the rush? 
Is Binannce in so much of a hurry to get their whitelist?
I mean come on, who âownsâ this chain: LUNC holders, or Binance? 
Shalom!
2 Likes
The discussion has been already up for 11 days in two threads the tax antehandler and v1.0.6, we even posted back and forth in there discussing them. I donât see a problem here. Did you forget about those? See images below.
1 Like
As usual, bad actors donât see any problem breaking the rules. Thatâs the case with jesusislord, fucking clown. Respect the rules from the chain.
I agree with you that point, Binance gave reason that they need internal movements between wallets because of security purposes, I donât think so, If they want to improve security network more, they should support their engineers work with our L1JTF, but they donât do that. And I think if they have many internal wallets, they might get profit by trading between wallets easily.
While thereâs a bit of overlap, this thread covers 3 separate proposals that are unique voting instances on the Station. One of which wasnât mentioned before as far as I know. I often disagree with community members when it comes to actual voting outcomes, but I feel that due process should be respected nonetheless and everyone given a chance to participate (or at least get enough time to read through new threads before voting commences). We have governance for a reason - this is a decentralized, community-owned blockchain, and the same rules apply to everyone, including the L1JTF⌠or at least they should.
Also, I wasnât aware Professor Kim was behind the JESUSisLORD validator. 
If thatâs not the case, then kindly allow the man to respond instead of doing so for him.
Shalom!
1 Like
Yes agreed with these 3 proposal.
1 Like