Systemic issues are the most urgent problem for Lunc

Governance & Proposals
1

I have read alex’s article about product vision.That’s definitely we need now.Through his views, I want to add more here.

We had the roadmap,why everyone knows how to do but we cannot follow it’s path?

Alex used a word “Political decentralize”,that’s accurate to this situation now.

Everyone come here,only has a same purpose,making money.But not every solution will be fast.Another point is not every community member understands what is financial circle,not everyone wants to wait for a long time.So we can see many useful proposals failed to pass.

Take Alex’s USTN repeg idea as example,repeg needs money,but we don’t have,so he proposed mint more lunc as a reserve fund.But not everyone agrees.Can you imagine,before your jump,you must bent your knees first?Just because the short sighted opinions,we missed one possible path.

Take Zaradar’s proposal as an example,his explanation is complicated,so the community don’t even understand,that is the one problem,another most important problem is why there is no one tracing his proposal and do some useful adjustments?In my opinion,his purpose is simple,just create some pools to precipitate more coins,that’s a efficient way to reduce the supply immediately.

Take part of our roadmap,bring more utilities to our chain as an example,the community don’t even know how or what is useful utility for us.Why none of our builders do a long term investigation to the other chain and other successful dapps,and just invite them to us?If they have no interest,why there is no one wants to create it by ourselves?

Take all these chaos happened before as an example,why there are chaos?Just because we have so many different people in different positions,and they don’t have a whole vision or just some basic knowledge of finance,just use their imagination to propose or vote.And some of them shouting “decentralizing” everyday just because they want “decentralizing” other money from other people to their pockets.

Everyone especially the builders should realize,the success of business is not rely on imagination but only on the experience from the successful experience.Take crypto world as an example,can you imagine Binance without CZ?Can you imagine Eth without Vitalik?Can you imagine the previous success of luna without DK?——We need political centralization urgently.

Through the centralization of politics,we can make the long term projects be real.Don’t listen to somebody’s short term vision.Even the community knows we need a leader,and the DK said we need a strong leadership,the CZ said the good governance is important.

Without these,we will take a very long time and face many possible risks of failure.At least we should have a parliament,and we should have someone knowing both finance and crypto in our parliament.

Just follow the roadmap,build a centralized political structure is the key to our victory.
Become the victory is simple,just redo what DK has done,and reduce the risks of his financial structure preventing death spiral.And bring more killer utilities to our chain we can precipitate,then reduce the supply as fast as the staking.

That’s all.

3 Likes
2

Love this.

1 Like
3

Preach bro! We dont have an entity to represent delegators .

4

The reason Alex’s USTN proposal has not been supported by the community is not just the kneeling stage.

Imagine you’re an investor outside of LUNC chain, you know you’re using 60 cents of bitcoin to make a one-dollar USTN coin, so would you use this unstable coin, leaving another 100% reserve stable coins?

The qualification to get the signiorage effect is only possible if the use or value of the currency is irreplaceable. like a petro dollar. Where does the irreplaceable value come from for USTN to achieve 40% signiorage effect?

The only advantage of USTN is that the death spiral does not occur when it fails. It’s a strange project that starts with a prediction of failure.

Everything else has a bad effect on the chain.

  1. hundreds of Billions of LUNC Minting to raise capital undermines the direction of LUNC that has been converted into deflation coins and causes investors to leave.

  2. When proceeding LUNC/BTC swap with minted funds, you can expect a huge price drop for LUNC. It may never recover again.

  3. What difference does USTN, the result of its creation, have from other competing stable coins? Can investors use this coin, which is made of 60 cents, believe it’s $1 value?

We should consider whether the project is sustainable, not the goal of just re-peg at $1.

The same goes for zaradar’s plan. In order for his plan to be implemented, USTC must first be recalled to the on-chain pool.

If it’s not completed first, it’s just a eye-trick.

We are already collecting a 0.2% additional transaction fee for tax.

As soon as we get the only revenue from the LUNC chain, we’re putting it in the trash, and we’re saying we don’t have any money.

Isn’t that a funny fact? Why do you believe that LUNC and USTC are valuable currencies and claim that we don’t have money after burning them?

Burning down the furniture in your house will increase the price of furniture in a furniture company? I don’t know why community fell into this group hypnosis.

Once we’ve collected taxes, we have to study how to use them meaningfully.

Direct burn is not a meaningful use.

The proposal below has been submitted to the Binance IRI Fund and is under review by them.

If the community approves the proposal below, I have a plan to increase the value of LUNC in this way, and USTC will restore it to $1 as a variant of this proposal with Anchor protocol.

Before that, the community needs to wake up to the word BURN.

Otherwise, no matter how good an idea is presented, they will block their ears, block their eyes, and try not to listen to anything.

I already have plans for more than a year in my head. What I need is not a community that is swayed by political agitation and listens only to familiar celebrities, but a audit of a biggest company that can properly grasp the value or potential of plan.

3 Likes
5

Yes,that is a big problem.
We only has hope and fame from community.
We can use it as another invisible debt or asset

6

I my opinion this analogy should be “Reducing sought after assets in my company will increase the demand for it”

7

Demand arises when necessary.

8

I remember I have already talking about unsustainable of burning under your posts.

And zaradar&alex are examples to prove we are unorganized and walking like a drunk wanderering man.Don’t be serious.
To your proposal,I don’t know if it will work or not.So I have an open mind to it.

And I tried to educate the community,burning these money is worse than using these money to build.And I see someone of community using burning as an excuse to create chaos and unstable situations to making their own money.They don’t care about others,they can hurt the chain hurt others to making themselves money.And somebody thought burning can even pump the price,so they are easily be used by some hidden purpose.I have seen so much about this,that’s real the true side of humanity.The burning means to much to someone so they don’t want to give it up.
That’s why I suggest we need political centralization.

The solution of revival plan is really simple,but how to manage these chaos,and let everyone concentrate on one goal is a very tough work.
And we shouldn’t afraid the humanity,in opposite,we should admit the dark side of humanity and use it.

2 Likes
9

“Terra Classic will now have a 1.2% token burn to reduce its total supply – that news resulted in an over 70% pump for the LUNC price in a day in September, and over 100% in a week”. There was a high demand for the token because once supply would be reduced and demand remained high the price would increase. The delegators want aggressive burning. Validators and developers???

Are we short of funds in building? Where do we strike a balance ? Are you saying we should not burn and use the burn tax for the sole purpose of building. CZ believes in burning and supports burning. What am I missing? The dream that we will have a plethora of dApps and volume will increase? LUNA 2.0 has a number of dApps.Are they seeing that increase in volume?

Honestly, we will not reach the promise land until the LUNC supply is reduced significantly. The more we build and burn the better the outlook for the sustainability of the ecosystem.

1 Like
10

education to the community about the meaning of burning must really be straightened out. due to the large number of new communities entering crypto and the lack of understanding of how block chains work and what the economics of DEFi are. because of this lack of understanding, many communities who are lazy to research before investing in this coin are easily instigated and led to the wrong opinion. just look at the proof, after almost a year, this community only discusses these things, not discussing future sustainability innovations to find new investors or big companies that can actually use this block chain in real life. I agree with the statement that nowadays we need a leader figure to bring innovation forward. there is no one institution that does not have a leader to succeed. different things with BTC is indeed set the amount that will not increase. and the future vision and mission of using BTC is clear, so there is no debate between communities who already have a aligned vision and mission for the future. It is different with the current lunc block chain where it is not yet clear where it will be directed, so a leader who has clear credibility is needed to bring innovation better in line with its vision and mission. sorry if my writing is not understood because it uses a translator.

1 Like
11

Actually burning is a punishment to liquidity providers.
Imagine you are a arbitrager of Defi,the burn tax ate all your profit up when you are trading between chains,do you still have motivation to trade lunc?We need many professional arbitragers to provide liquidity and make the chain more valuable.Also the Repeg needs them too.

We burn half year just reduce 0.5%,it costs 50 years to burn to 10b.
If we repeg,we can accelerate it 100 times.It is already designed and assembled to this ecosystem itself.Just reactivate it.

Another way is killer class utilities,just like the staking,we use staking reduce 1T csupply in months.We need more like it.

The both ways are much much much faster than burning.And besides,they are healthy way,and sustainable.

12

That’s one side of the coin. One requires a lot of money in order to do arbitrage. Many delegators dont have that, so while the arbitragers make money, what do we make? The high supply is still there and will be there for eternity, if there is no burning. The reason why I invest in LUNC is because it’s a deflationary token. Once burning stops at this high supply, I am getting out. I invest in LUNC for the long term benefits.

" Ethereum is now a deflationary asset thanks to a new fee-burning mechanism that is removing Ethereum coins from circulation"

Staking is a temporary measure. When these tokens are released, what will happen?

That’s not going to happen now. The L! developers are laying the foundation for that.

3 Likes
13

Thank you guys for the interesting discussion so talking about re-peg Ustc or Ustn. What’s the best idea for re-peg to an established coin? What’s necessary to do that? How long take to implement?

Many regards

Ricardo