Stop LUNC Reminting From Burns

Governance & Proposals
1

Summary

"Following the recent developments as laid out in Proposal 10983 and Proposal 11111, where LUNC burn is being re-minted as a development fund, Binance will be making changes to the burning of LUNC trading fees” -Binance

These proposals in addition to proposal 5234 have enabled a seigniorage (remint) of burned LUNC. This includes burns from the tax and voluntary burns to the burn wallet. This means Binance, and everyone else who burns LUNC is subject to this remint that is sent to the community pool to fund ecosystem development.

Motivation

Binance has stated they do not want the LUNC they burn to be reminted. In order to not jeopardize our relationship with Binance and to meet the needs of our community it’s best to set the re-mint to 0% & the burn to 100%.

Please see Binance official statement: CLICK HERE

Proposal

Our proposal is to remove the LUNC seigniorage (remint) off of Terra Luna Classic burns.

Justification

Currently there is enough funding in the community pool to cover the needs of the L1 team of 908,000,000 LUNC total for the next 3 months and still have over 700,000,000 LUNC ($112,000 @ $0.00016) left in the community pool to cover any immediate needs until alternative funding is found.

See community pool funds: CLICK HERE

Parameter Changes Required:
{
“subspace”: “treasury”,
“key”: “RewardPolicy”,
“value”: “{“rate_min”: “1.0”, “rate_max” “1.0”, “cap”:{“denom”: “unused” “amount”: “0” }, “change_rate_max” “0.0”}”
}

By voting YES you agree that we should work with Binance and we should stick to the communities original vision of not reminting new LUNC coins. This parameter change will stop the minting of Terra Luna Classic off of our burns.

By voting NO you are indicating that you believe our current system of reminting LUNC off of burns is ok, and you also believe Binance burns are not needed.

For this Agora post, we would appreciate any comments or suggestions. I would like to give a special thank you to Asobs and to Edward Kim for their support and insights.

8 Likes
2

We don’t need this prop edk208 already submitted a proposal that remint 0 of the burn
Ekd208 proposal is enough

1 Like
3

EDK208 proposal is a signaling proposal and it doesn’t apply any of the codes needed to make the changes he detailed, he indicated in his proposal there will need to be multiple proposals brought up outside of his prop, we are assisting EDK with that for he will be busy with L1 developments.

6 Likes
4

Will binance consider to again burn 100% fee of their spot and margin trading. By passing this proposal ?

5

Need agreement with CZ. Without Binance support 1.0 (2.0, 3.0 and any another’s versions) have not any chances. Better follow Roadmap, Rebels.

6

What is the purpose of this proposal other than selfish publicity?

Ed has already submitted a proposal for discussion. Further, he has done this after consultation with Binance. And furthermore, Binance has acknowledged this in their announcement.

Ed has a couple of months now to get this, or a variation of through before the next Binance burn. Again, as Binance’s stated in their announcement.

The big boys are now dealing with this CK. Let’s not confuse the situation even more and just let them get on with it.

2 Likes
7

Please read EDKs original proposal.

EDK208 proposal is a signaling proposal and it doesn’t apply any of the codes needed to make the changes he detailed, he indicated in his proposal there will need to be multiple proposals brought up outside of his prop, we are assisting EDK with that for he will be busy with L1 developments.

2 Likes
8

This has to be done for damage control because Binance’s response isn’t favorable. We want them to burn 100% of their fees. They will eventually stop burning if we continue siphoning funds off burns. That is pretty clear by their statement.

There is only one issue - if we do this, and we finish off the rest of the CP while investing in a few more projects, then what happens? Cause we have no mechanism to refill it currently. There are also no dapps which are sending any amount to CP directly.

Without a backup option of how we will be able to fund development beyond 3 months, should we completely remove the 10-15% that we are gonna get after this?

3 Likes
9

İf all burn this good​:white_check_mark: and , I don’t think greedy people want that here have more thiefs :expressionless:

1 Like
11

Yeah it will take time but he consider that he will hard code it only 0.2%tax = 50% to burn and 50 to Community pool and all other burn will never remint again after that no one will be to change it as I understand I hope that we will together work with edk208 to build better
Love you king sir

12

@Cryptoking_NFT if I’m not wrong you woted yes on 50% re-minting proposal!

1 Like
14

edk208 is the number 1 to make signal proposal, when need attire consensus, and is the number one when need make it with code for change.

I’m tired of Terra Rebel, and I will hardly work whith everyone in the community tired of them.

15

Well, the point:

Edward already did and posted a proposal about it…if i remember well, to remint 0%.

Let’s kindly check , you may also share your ideas on that proposal, in order to don’t create another similar one.

Thanks for every step done in the name of $lunc,
@RobSampaioLab

Ps:
Need to rename here, now it’s @betosampaiolab.
Trying my best to represent Brazilians here! :smile: :brazil:

16

I agree with this, Ed consulted Binance before putting forward his proposal let’s stick with his plan. Binance have been communicating with Ed are likely aware of his plans, I doubt any changes will be made by them from this proposal.

1 Like
17

King is proposing a parameter change to stop minting till ed proposals get through and it’s fully implemented. It’s not trying to override Ed’s . I’m ok with it

2 Likes
18

We must have a bedrock principle of no minting ever including from BT. That includes diverting funds from the BT to the CPOOL. Funding developers must be done separately and there are many ways of doing this including from Binance. Raise the BT and leave it alone. For a quick solution CK is right. The CPOOL will give us at least 3 months. If a funding solution isn’t figured out by end of Q1 then remove 2 Billion Coins from the ORACLE POOL. 1 Billion to burn and 1 Billion to CPOOL. The Blockchain has a massive debt. Austerity and sacrifice is needed. We need to stop the following thought processes: 1. Do not rob Peter to Paul. 2. Every option must be on the table to rapidly increasing burns. Oracle Pool, Rewards etc. BT as high as possible. 3. We must sacrifice. There is no way to get huge price appreciation without significant personal burning. Somebody else just isn’t going to do it and then we get to keep all our coins while others make the sacrifice. We all must do it. This will add to whatever burns are being graciously carried out by donors and utility. CK you have my support but BT must always remain completely untouched from Minting and diversion. It is the only way to eliminate the endless games that most Intellectuals and free spenders like to play.

1 Like
19

Tobias already put the PR in to github. Days ago. Doubt we need your help. The other 2 props are siple props to change %s. Nice try to jump on the band wagon. That shit wont happen.

1 Like
20

Why are you echoing the intentions of Eds prop that was submitted yesterday which will be a hard coded and will stop any method of burning. I would vote no on this just for the fact you are not respecting the prop that was previously submitted by Ed. Signal or not… that’s not a valid reason. The signal was intended to be implemented. Your not helping by creating more props on the same subject.

This is a grab on popularity. Come up with something that solves a problem that hasn’t already been solved.

21

So TR mods stole lunc funds, you are stealing Ed’s+LUNCLIVE+Binance purposal? Can you do something original, new? Or just clicbaiting?

I’m forecasting your purposal will be put up to vote 1 day before original, you can expect no vith veto from ne

1 Like
22

Lunc community did not agree to CZ for spot trading fees burn. We wanted every transaction fees being taxed and burned. With compromise CZ and binance elected to burn at least spot trading fees which for us Lunc community is benefiting for it with the ultimate goal of reducing the supply to 10bil LUNC.

So asking CZ to agree is to me is not being nice. They are helping us. Try asking Kucoin and other CEX if they can help burn like binance do and then we approach CZ to agree.