Stop LUNC Reminting From Burns

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

1 Like

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

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

1 Like

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.

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,

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

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

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


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

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

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.

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

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.

No with veto.We are Lunc and not Binance community !We have to look for our own way to shine again !

Yup a signaling prop stating we will be putting forward 2 more props shortly to stop minting as one of them. Funny you guys decide to hop on and do one of the props we were signaling to do smh. Stick with your own props. You and asobs both argued for 10983 prop to mint. You both told the community to vote for minting. After 10983 passed you both defended 10983 and went against prop 11111. Which helped stop the bleed while the next prop to stop minting was being worked on. You and asobs helped cause the mess with Binance. Now you are trying to ride a new wave with the ones trying to fix yalls mess. Even though you and asobs were told many times Binance was not happy. You bothed argued other wise. I Recommend you remove this Prop proposal ASAP and leave it to the ones that were against minting from the beginning. The ones who didnt flip flop just to get views and followers. Ill attach down below proof shoing Asobs was for minting.

I clearly said that if the money we are burning goes elsewhere I stop burning…

Although asobs and CK are both adults and can reply to you themselves, I am replying to you cause I was in the active discussion group (TR) when one of the guys came up with this 10983. Not only were those people who created the prop part of the discussion, the people are now doing damage control were also there. Ed, Z and Frag were all in the TR server. Ed even explained to us exactly how much we are supposed to get back to CP and it was a very complicated calculation.

We are all developers and we agreed to 10983 because it would mean more development for the entire blockchain, but the questions about Binance were raised back then also. We kept asking the proponents of 10983 whether they had contacted Binance - they said no. Everyone agreed (back then) to support this prop and I am quoting the supporters - “This is not Binance. This is Terra Luna Classic.”

Now, coming to asobs’s tweet, there are two parts to it.

The first part is where he is confident that Binance will support 10983. There is a reason for this - after hours of debating with each other, we came to the conclusion that if Binance had to tell us anything they would have told us by then. If they said absolutely nothing, it means it’s a silent support. Seems like we were wrong. It wasn’t a silent support, it was a silent revolt, as we realize now.

The second part directly states what we all believed in when voting for 10983 - that this development work which will be funded by 10983 will eventually result in more burns and hence, will be good for the entire chain, and the community at large. That did not happen. TR had other plans. If we were aware about future plans of TR, maybe we wouldn’t have voted for it. Maybe all developers had something to get out of it - that’s why TCV also voted yes. Most development teams voted yes to it (some who voted yes would have come up with props later).

Finally, your question is why are they doing this now when Ed’s prop is on the way.

You have to understand that there is a symbiotic relationship between the community, the blockchain and influencers who reach out to the world and bring new investors onto the chain. You might think that all investors are in Telegram or Discord groups. That’s actually far from the truth. Most investors follow influencers. If they don’t exist, this blockchain does not exist.

Developers, with the kind of attitude and ego that they have, will not be able to support a blockchain to become successful. That just can’t happen. In fact, what could happen is that a developer could completely destroy the blockchain, if there was no one explaining their actions to the outside world. If LUNC influencers did not exist, you guys have no idea what effect would this conversation or any conversation on Twitter would have had, on the price of LUNC. It would be devastating if the in-fighting (which is clearly out in the open) was not explained or handled by the influencers.

If influencers currently feel liable for 10983 passing and Binance taking away the burns, then I think you should let them do the damage control. The sooner, the better. Ed already has a few things on his plate and I am sure that even to come up the next props is gonna take some time for him. If other teams wanna get involved and get some props passed to help speed up Ed’s work then I see no harm in that. We should let them do it. If it interferes with Ed’s work then I am sure @Asobs and @Cryptoking_NFT can both talk to Ed and sort the specifics before putting this up for voting.

Actually when the re-mint proposed came out. you should understand that Binance will terminate burning of LUNC . No one can accept the profit contributed by themselves and be taken away by others.
I suggest that any proposes in the community needs to be carefully considered. Binance may directly cancel all destruction plans next time.

I might be wrong but didn’t you supported the proposal 10983?

Thanks Crypto for taking the initiative! Let’s hold on this for the time being as I think other pieces may need to fall into place before it makes sense to execute on this. The mechanism on the other prop may also change based upon community feedback.


What do you thing about TR roadmap 2022? You don’t support burn oracle ustc more?