So now you are going to destroy Lunc via 1.2% tax

Governance & Proposals
1

I really ask myself how dumb some peole can be.

What defines the value of a blockchain ?

1.Community
2.projects on the blockchain
3.Activity
4.Income (outside of its default coin)
5.Trading volume

So people think adding a 1.2% is going to increase the value of lunc ?
How can a 1.2% increase the value of a blockchain if

1.It won’t grow community

2.Projects will leave because of that high tax

3.Activity on blockchain will decrease massivly because who wants to pay each time 1.2% of his coins when making a transaction.People will just hold their coins on cex and do no more transactions at all

4.Income is not outside of default coin which means you add in reality no value to it.You are just manipulating the price per coin but the marketcap won’t move at all.The only winners will be the speculators who are not moving or using the blockchain

5.Trading volume will massivly decrease because arbitrage bots which generate majority of volume will massivly decrease its volume with a 1.2% transaction cost.Just count yourself how high the arbitrage needs to be so a trade will be executed.Moving from one cex to bridge.Bridge to dex.Dex to bridge.Bridge to cex.

You are killing your own coin and for what exectly ?To manipulate numbers ?
Where is the diffrence when everyone is holding if you have 10 out of 100 coins or 100 out of 1000 coins.It makes no diffrence and you create with this tax completly NO VALUE

ALL YOU DO is benefit speculators who want to make a quick buck who won’t use the blockchain and who will leave a de.ad blockchain and nothing else.

6 Likes
2

It is not necessary to make a tax of 1.2%. You can make 0.1% -0.5% - this is a completely acceptable load. But if you do not understand that reducing the supply of any product or buying back shares always increases their value, then discuss this issue with you not worth it.

8 Likes
3

I respectfully don’t think you have this right. I don’t understand why some people are so against a burn. In every public poll 80-90% say they want it.

I’ve been proposing a 3% tax/burn on every CEX/DEX sale transaction since I read DKs original LUNA2 proposal and before the community support was apparent. I’ve been ‘deep diving’ on LUNA/LUNC ever since. I don’t see any reason it wouldn’t work and the points you’ve noted don’t seem valid concerns imho.

In short, LUNC volume is around $100m USD per day, 3% is $3m, around 40bn LUNC at current prices. A temporary burn like this would reduce supply from 6.9tr to a few bn in a year. The projections aren’t hard if you want to do them yourself there’s also pre-made spreadsheets on the most popular burn proposal.

I don’t see how this would disadvantage anyone and shitcoins manage to do similar things so why can’t one of the biggest ecosystems in crypto figure it out?

The 3% tax is paid on sale transactions by the seller, not the buyer. Anyone who doesn’t want to pay can HODL, simple. Any LUNC holder has experiences horrendous volatility and losses, no one is going to care about 3% on sale transactions. It will be welcomed by the majority who have been asking for it for weeks now.

It rewards HOLDers and buyers, both don’t pay the fee. Speculators/traders don’t care because if they’re any good the 3% fee is near-meaningless to them. The moment something like this was announced there woudl be a big spike based on two things: future projections and sentiment. That doesn’t unfairly reward only speculators, price going up helps literally everyone, how can anyone object to that?

Rather it would be largely speculators who fund the entire thing since only sale transactions are taxed.

Sentiment would improve and it’s so bad right now any improvement would have a big impact.

Any way you slice it, having say 10bn coins instead of 6.9tr coins will mean a massive increase in per-token-price, even if mcap doesn’t change and doing it this ways is the simplest, fairest way imho.

Do you have any real data on the amount of volume that is arbitrage, as opposed to regular trading bots or non-bot trades. I don’t imagine volume would change much at all. But even if the bot trading resulted in a 50-75% drop in volume, who would care if the price was going up from the burns? And there’s no way it wouldn’t go up assuming mcap remained relatively stable or increased (as it is likely to do the moment something like this is announced and the longer it stays in place especially if it is combined with some functionality/work remaining associated with LUNC).

14 Likes
4

When people ask such a question, it is necessary to make a comparison. For example, someone wants to buy a product. Any. There is no difference.
Any sales tax starts at 5%. Value added tax from 15%. I’m not talking about any excise taxes and income taxes.
But the economy has not died and is working quietly and there are no problems. We can even say that civilization is developing.
Maybe this percentage is large and it is worth reducing it… All exchanges trade with a commission of 0.2% or more… and these are quite large sums and no one has any questions.
But the introduction of a burning tax will not affect the coin in a negative way. If of course the coin will be used!

6 Likes
5

The issue is you have simply no understanding of reality and blockchain.All you do theoraticly

Let’s begin with you want to add buy/sell transaction fee on cex.
I guess you live in a dream world.You have completly NO SAY when it comes to fee’s or tax on cex.
What MCX did was a marketing stunt for 30 days and nothing more.
No important cex is going to add a tax just because luna community wishes it.
You guys clearly never dealt with cexes before and have no understanding that your vote here has completly no influence on cex.All you do is tax the active part of the community using the blockchain

Secondly you use volume of current lunc.
However you don’t even think a step forward.
If you add a transaction cost of 1.2% it means that arbitrage cost will explode from 0% to 2.4-4.8% per trade.
This means majority of arbitrage will simply stop.
Would you have some experience in cex you would know that 2/3 of a coins volume is being generated by arbitrage bots which makes all exchanges interact.This way a coin is liquid on all exchanges and not only where the majority sits.
You destroy it and nothing else.

The result of a 1.2% tax is

Decrease of volume by 2/3 over a short term period
Decrease of blockchain activity
Leaving Dapps to better blockchains with no fee

What are the benefits ?

What is the pro side ?

Decrease of supply with NO total marketcap change at all.
Benefitions will be people who had no activity on the blockchain.

Yeah seems a good idea to punish people who add value to the blockchain and benefit people who add no value to the blockchain.

MAKES TOTAL SENSE.

If you want to add a burning mechanism then it can be max 0.075% to not harm trading or blockchain activity.
Also you don’t burn 0.075% but create funds
0.035% incentive for dapps/devs to build on that blockchain
0.015% for validators/staking
0.025% burn

This is the only way you add value and don’t harm the blockchain
Everything else is total idiotism which has only one goal to quickly increase price of coin leaving a dea.d blockchain behind so some people can du.mp their coins with a profit and nothing else.

8 Likes
6

Thank you. Finally someone with rational logic. Most people doesn’t understand the cost of buring, and tokonomics.

1 Like
7

This is very logical and detailed response for Luna community. Thanks for sharing, now please expedite on your proposal.

8

It is very good that you openly admitted that you are against an increase in the price of the token.

1 Like
9

Sir. thanks to your sharing plan for the burning mechanism. I think this will be a perfect professional proposal. Please expedite on your proposal. I believe that everyone, including verifications, will support your ideas. Sorry English is not my mother tongue

10

100% right 1% tax is crazy. Who will use the chain if you do that?

I think taxing is like get rid of real user.We need to find other way.

1 Like
11

“If you want to add a burning mechanism then it can be max 0.75% to not harm trading or blockchain activity.
Also you don’t burn 0.75% but create funds
0.35% incentive for dapps/devs to build on that blockchain
0.15% for validators/staking
0.25% burn”

Now its good

6 Likes
12

This a billion percent.

13

necessary 5%

14

Sadly, OP is completely right.
Bitcoin didn’t become bitcoin by imposing some sort of burn rate. Bitcoin became Bitcoin because of adoption and utility.
If the only thing this community can sell to the market is scarcity (number of total supply on a steady downtrend), then why won’t you just invest in BTC or ETH.

To move forward we need first our governance back, re-enable staking, then we will need new validators and new developers who is willing to invest in what is seemly the hopeless project.

That being said I’m however sympathetic to those who try really hard to make a burn proposal possible. Or any new proposal at all. It is a long shot for anything. But much better than no action at all, in which case we would be truly in deaad water.

2 Likes
15

I’m sure you’d put all your money into :fire: LUNC :fire: if the burning was announced today, don’t talk nonsense.

Do Kwon and the validators left the LUNC project what do you not understand ?

1 Like
16

Yan koçum. Sen bizi yaktın.sende yanasın emi…

17

Bitcoin became became bitcoin also because it has a max supply of 21 million. Come on.

3 Likes
18

LOL so create a coin with 5 million supply and show me how you get that price without community/adaoption on a dea.d blockchain

“I’m sure you’d put all your money into :fire: LUNC :fire: if the burning was announced today, don’t talk nonsense.”
I would dum.p my coins after a possible short term pu.mp and leave the dea.d chain forever.
Let’s see who will be the loser

1 Like
19

Otherwise we can talk about luna v2 and why it will be less than 1$ soon…

Doing the same blockchain with probably the same stablecoin and called it v2.

It is totally worthless…

The only way to save Luna is to save the old luna and show to community, the team can fix their mistakes.

Instead of scamming us with the same product under a diffeerent name.

3 Likes
20

Then explain why Bitcoin Cash failed? Market cap of BCH is way lower than SHIB and DOGE.

Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency that is a fork of Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash is a spin-off or altcoin that was created in 2017. In November 2018, Bitcoin Cash split further into two cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. Wikipedia
What is the difference between bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash?
As noted, the key difference between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash is the block size . Because of this adjustment, Bitcoin Cash can have faster and less expensive transactions. A Bitcoin transaction costs $59 on average while Bitcoin Cash costs less than a penny.