@tarikmandal So then it is not a security issue is what you are saying? If it is a security issue then it should automatically be granted to all exchanges, not just Binance. If it is to make Binance happy then say so and don’t call it a security issue.
"This means deposits and withdrawals are not exempt, but rather only the internal movements between wallets will be exempt for their internal security purposes. "
There are no security vulnerabilities on the chain.it can be done if other exchanges want it.
I support all three of the proposals.
For those that think there will be a massive reduction in overall burns could you provide some additional information to support your claim?
Also, is anyone working on a proposal to submit to Binance’s Crypto Revitalization Fund? Seems like we are leaving money on the table if we dont. I dont have any particular insight into what makes a good proposal but additional funding to support the work the L1 team is doing, funding for some sort of security audit and funds to support dapp integration makes a lot of sense.
1 Like
Thank you Mr. Kim for your proposals. I think the proposals are well explained and there are 3 yes for me
1 Like
Gut_Daddy supports this fully and in the future whitelisting other Cex’s if it helps us
I was responding to the comment @RedlineDrifter made saying it was a security issue. And this proposal should state that any exchange who wants this feature only needs to request it without another proposal, otherwise we are elevating one exchange over the others and that isn’t good policy long term.
If other exchanges ask about whitelisting i don’t see a problem in asking them back about implementing any offchain burn, like Binance does first.
5 Likes
Binance has burnt billions on behalf of the community and will continue to do so although this time it will be only 50% of fees.
If the other exchanges also agree to doing the same ,then the community can also vote to whitelist their wallets.
Remember that whenever they burn, they make announcements about it. Those announcements play a significant role in marketing our coin as well .
By giving Binance special consideration, it is likely other exchanges where LUNC is a major volume driver may also approach the community for the same exemptions .(I am hoping Kucoin, BTC Turk, Bitforex and MEXC do so as LUNC is a major coin on all four CEXes) so as to remain cost-competitive.
This is in many ways, a win-win.
We get billions burnt. It may not be much, but it will keep the large percentage of the community(which is the majority) that bought the coin for the burns happy and will help when it comes to price action. Over the span of a year, we may actually burn a significant amount that is off-chain.
More importantly, LUNC will be mentioned and basically advertised every month(or even less) by Binance and possibly other CEXes, meaning that we will never fade to oblivion as many crypto coins have. Currently Binance only shills two coins. BNB and BTC. We will basically be the third coin they will be (indirectly) shilling. That can never be a bad thing.
5 Likes
Correct me if im wrong but at the end of each period binance actually buys the coins that they send to the burn wallet on chain so those transactions do get charged the burn tax.
I see that some people have vision for the future, if the chain keeps growing and interest increases more exchanges are going to be interested in the whitelist option and we can set conditions for it to be done. (Some other projects/games/protocols might be interested and actually need it too)
Since it is a parameter it should go thru governance any time changes are made and wallets are added/removed if im not mistaking so i don’t see how this can be a bad thing.
Binance solely contributed 20b coins in just a few months, can you imagine if the top 10 or 20 exchanges do that too? Also the more hype , the more volume , the more burned coins.
(And thats just hype, not mentioning all the building going on)
As always ,that’s just my opinion.
3 Likes
8% tax? Ridiculous. Thats one of the fastest ways to destroy the chain.
2 Likes
In my opinion exempting “burn-tax” donors from transaction taxes by using “whitelisting addresses”
- may incentivize them to donate more, as they can avoid the additional cost of the transaction tax on their donation.
- May increase the amount of funds received: If more donors are encouraged to “burn” like Binance, due to the exemption from transaction taxes, the community cause may receive more funds than they would have otherwise
- It simplifies the donation process: If donors don’t have to worry about transaction taxes, it may make the donation process simpler and more straightforward.
6 Likes
Burn Faster, in my opinion. Looking to help fund and support devs at the sane time burns. Isn’t the issue eliminating the trillions of LUNC. It ‘s just like sales tax. You buy something you pay sales tax. If you buy 1M LUNC, automatic burn tax would be 80.000 approximately $1.46 @ 0.00017
Not bad option to burn LUNC …
1 Like
Yes, in exchange for the burning of fees though.
Fees will just look like sales tax. You buy something you like at a store and you pay 8% sales tax. This would be the same. If you like LUNC you buy paying burn tax just like sales tax at the same time push the burn issue a lot faster while supporting the devs 3% of the burn tax. It seems doable but would be an interesting topic if the community really want to see massive Burns.
1 Like
how about instead of cash grabing donated burn money increase the gas fees thats what it is for.
gas fees already fund pool/stakers/validators
1 Like
These proposals are indeed related to the previous discussions that have been posted in the past couple weeks. Since these were optional features, I thought it best we decide by governance whether or not it even makes sense to bring them up for additional discussion. Now that it seems that they may pass, I have posted separate discussions around each of them, this time with the accompanying code and technical specifications.
The separate burn wallet code has 3 different versions that I am presenting to Binance, and it may not even be necessary in the end, given seigniorage is turned off. If we can simply deprecate seigniorage for the time being, that may be enough. I will update when I know more.
8 Likes
turned off because binance stop sending and no more funds can be stolen.
Once binance or any relevant donator stars sending weekly , greedy f…s will look for ways to cash grab.
Antehandler was never voted/requested on any proposal
1 Like
@selmo_TV The burn tax AnteHandler only applies to on-chain burn tax split. If Binance burns 10 billion off-chain then they will be completely unaffected and there will be zero minting (as seniorage is turned off). You are mistaken about the operation of the tax AnteHandler.
2 Likes
Good.
Sorry guys for the stupid question, when and where can be voted?