Stop LUNC Reminting From Burns

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.

3 Likes

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

The roadmap is not being followed :sweat_smile:

@ek826 the Community Pool is funded not just by the Seigniorage Reward Policy, but also by the Community Tax implemented by Prop 4080.

Instead of minting from burns (which Binance is against), and hard-coding a 50-50 split between burns and CP (which the community seems to be divided on), why doesn’t TGF and the L1 Task Force focus on raising gas prices instead?

The current number of transactions on Terra Classic are good enough to keep the Community Pool afloat from gas prices, thereby reducing reliance on Binance or any external third party.

1 Like

Good idea. Ed covered the gas fee increase here as a way to buff the oracle pool No Money, Mo’ Problems?. Introduction | by Edward Kim | Dec, 2022 | Medium. We should be optimising any low-felt-cost methods to achieve funding for both CP and oracle pool while keeping good burns.

2 Likes

Yes, this indeed is a great article from Ed!

Yes, exactly. We shouldn’t be utilising any of the burn amounts for funding community pool. Rather than doing a 50-50 split between burns and CP, we should look at doing a 80-20 split between Oracle Pool and CP; and increase gas fees to create a self sustaining economy.

@ek826 would it be technically easier to create a split between the oracle pool and community pool?

1 Like

hard to follow a road map when the community keeps bickering and voting for new stuff every week.

1 Like