Here is the mention of the third proposal 11 days ago which is to provide an option so Binance’s burns cannot be re-minted. That statement could only apply to the new burn wallet. It could have been communicated more clearly, but it was stated.
In your first post you presented it as if all three proposals were rushed forward with no discussion, and then my post corrected you, showing they were up for 11 days, and you yourself posted 16 times over both threads. How could you have forgotten such a thing or were you lying to hurt these proposals chance to pass?
I myself posted over the 11 days in both proposals and was eagerly awaiting them being put up for vote. Anyone can read those threads, they are on the main page.
Ed can respond to you if he likes, and so am I free to point out your contradictions.
There’s no “could” or “should” here - if a thread is put up, it should stay up for 7 days minimum before any of its content is sent to the Station for voting. New information overwrites the old - since a new(er) thread was posted here, it stands to reason that was done because there are updates available (like the second Binance burn wallet), because why else would anyone waste their time submitting another thread while the previous ones were still up? Your logic doesn’t track, ergo you’re incorrect.
Regardless, it’s bad form to proceed like this… especially in the middle of a work week.
That’s a loaded question/assumption. Nothing any of us say here has an impact on L1JTF-submitted props, they’ll all pass instantly with a resounding YES due to toadies and lackeys like yourself in the active set who practically trip over themselves to demonstrate their fealty to Binance. I’m just leaving comments that I can point to later in the future once the overall situation deteriorates to the point where fingers will be pointed.
My question was meant for him, not for you. But you seem incapable of controlling yourself, to the point you take some kind of perverse joy from barging into every topic and conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with you, like an obnoxious pest. You’re pissing in the wind by fighting some kind of quixotic crusade against me here on the Agora, there’s nothing to be gained except safisfying whatever delusions rattle around in your thick skull.
Go touch grass, Christopher. Commune with your god.
Yes when Binance burns again and is instrumental in LUNC’s price rise we can all look back and see your posts and how wrong you were. Sounds good. I’ll leave you to it.
Great progress, Ed! This addresses several issues we have had in the past with aligning our frequesnt changes with Binance to continue their burns without impact. In support of all 3 proposals!
“ Binance has requested that the internal movement between Binance owned wallets be exempt from the burn tax ”
I also have multiple wallets… should I apply for a “tax exemption” ? I would definitely enjoy the benefit of selling P2P without having to pay that tax
Just to clarify: From what I have understood, these are internal wallets used for transfers between hot and cold wallets accounts, which are on-chain accounts, for internal security purposes. They do not want to be taxed multiple times (for the fees they choose to burn, and then again for every time they transfer internally for security purposes).
Just wanted to point that out if it is helpful (if not, just disregard)
"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. "
Remember back when they first implemented the 1.2% tax…. There was a list (in the proposal) that was agreed on of multiple wallets being “whitelisted from tax”.
So… after this proposal passes, what percentage of tax is Binance paying?
Thank you for this information. If this is the case then this proposal should be extended to the likes of Kucoin who have hot and cold wallets on-chain in exchange for the burning of LUNC and USTC fees.
Thia is only a temporary solution. It does help in price action but un-staking resets it quite easily. Kucoin comes to mind.
I too voted YES on those three encircled proposals. Still thinking about the other one.
It is generally not a good idea to put proposals to a vote too early, as doing so can result in incomplete or insufficiently considered decisions. However in this case ,why do we still have people bellowing into the forum, giving baseless views on already discussed proposals? I am with you on this @JESUSisLORD
It is generally not a good idea to put proposals to a vote too early, as doing so can result in incomplete or insufficiently considered decisions. However @ek826 statement above is just as he said a signaling proposal. In my opinion, this signaling proposal is written in a way that is clear, credible, and effective and hence does not require the “7 day minimum request” from those clamoring for it.
Why does Binance get a pass on the burn when transferring between wallets but the other exchanges do not? Why are we giving preferential treatment to one business over others? Either set a criteria for what an exchange is and allow all exchanges to white-list their external wallets or don’t allow it for any. By giving Binance special consideration we are making LUNC less attractive to other exchanges and businesses.
@awhite Binance was and will again be burning LUNC off-chain for us. That’s what sets them apart from others. If any other exchanges want to do that too we can whitelist their internal wallets also. Kucoin would be good.
Binance burns are a vital part of continued growth in valuation of $LUNC. As such, the 2 requested optional features are a necessity. The 3rd would facilitate seamless burns and funding of community pool from on chain tax. A YES signalling vote in its entirety…
Thank you kindly @ek826 for your dedicated and invaluable contribution towards the evolution of #LUNACLASSIC
