The Securitization of Community Taxes

[babymonkeymusk]

Introduction:
The purpose of this proposal is to outline the possibility of securitizing a portion of the community’s taxes through the distribution of a new token, called LuncTax. This report will explore the benefits and challenges of this proposal, discussing issues related to the percentage to be securitized and the tokenomics of LuncTax.

Proposal:
It is proposed to securitize 90% of the 0.2% tax (or a percentage of it) through the distribution of LuncTax. The token will confer on holders the right to receive the community’s taxes, and the proceeds from the sale of the token, priced in UST or LUNC, will be instantly burned. The community will have to decide on the precise percentage of tax to be securitized.

Benefits:
Securitizing taxes offers the advantage of instantly burning the revenue from the sale of the token, contributing to increasing its scarcity and reducing the amount of LUNC or UST in circulation. Additionally, trading of this new token could encourage the entry of new capital into the chain and increase the volume transacted on it.

Challenges:
However, there are some challenges to address. Firstly, the decision on the precise percentage of tax to be securitized must be carefully made to ensure a fair balance between the taxes that will go to LuncTax holders and those that will continue to be sent to the d3ad wallet. Secondly, the tokenomics of LuncTax must be appropriately designed to ensure maximum return for LUNC holders while keeping the offering attractive to new investors. Additionally, a time frame for the tax to remain in effect must be established for the sake of fairness to the LuncTax token, as once the tax is removed, it will no longer have any value.

Tokenomics:
Regarding the tokenomics of LuncTax, the community will need to establish the token’s price and distribution conditions. Additionally, transparency in the distribution of the token will need to be ensured, and mechanisms such as auctions should be considered to guarantee fair access. It is suggested to opt for a small trading tax for this cryptocurrency, so that part of the securitized tax returns to the protocol’s ownership, which can then decide whether to use the revenue to fund CP, burn it, or resell LuncTax and burn the proceeds.

SIMULATION:
Now I will run some simulations.
According to data taken from : LUNC Burner | TerRarity
In the last 30 days 919,069,620 luncs were burned through the fiscal burn, therefore 30,635,654.00 luncs per day. At this rate per year, that would be 11,182,013,710.
Assuming you want to derive the equivalent of 3,5,7,10,15,20,25,30 years of current tax revenue.

The bet of the holder ones is that tax revenues will increase. And LuncTax trading will already help with this. Providing a real incentive to be able to burn their lunch.
Also having burned a fair amount of the total supply, now the taxes they collect, in dollars, will be worth more than they would otherwise be worth without the securitization.
If the community approves this, the relevant team will implement the necessary.

Conclusion:
The proposal to securitize the community’s taxes through the distribution of LuncTax represents a potential solution to excess supply that can be implemented in a short period of time. The implementation of this project requires careful planning and active cooperation from the community. The final decision rests with the community, but it is hoped that this proposal can be a useful contribution to the discussion on the future of the Lunc ecosystem.

[pivo4et]

You can create any tokens for yourself.
The answer to your and any other similar proposal is no with a veto.

[babymonkeymusk]

hi, i honestly don’t understand why when you read new token, all biased. Did you at least get an idea about the potential advantages and disadvantages of what I have proposed? also it would be a temporary token, the creation of which means lunc burns right away. burn that otherwise, as you can see from the projections, according to current data, it would take years. the entire amount of the token sale should be burned, I didn’t say I want part of the proceeds. It would give value to lunc owners and I explained how as well. It would be better for you to debunk this thesis, rather than saying no when you read “new token”. What then do you not like the word “token”? whether it is a new token, or an nft collection that confers the right to collect taxes does not change. the important thing is to “sell” something, and that something is the only income we have, i.e. chain taxes, burn the proceeds and bet on the fact that the trading of what we have sold (whether it is a token or an nft, little change) you increase the volume in the chain, thus increasing the burns. I would have understood more a question like “why would people want to buy this?” I would reply that people buy everything, as can be clearly seen, furthermore, from an “investment” perspective, here they buy the bet that the volume on the chain will increase, making it a profitable investment, not to mention the potential revaluation of the token (or nft ) same.

[arunadaybasu]

He’s just tr(o)lling. He forgot what a blockchain is for I think he lost a lotta money in Luna during the cr(ash.

He’s not getting it that we never lost any money to begin with.

For us, this is a new blockchain.

[babymonkeymusk]

I can’t change the topic, these would be the instantaneous burn projections deriving from the sale of the token.

[babymonkeymusk]

By hypothesis:
we choose to securitize 80% of the burn
we evaluate it with reference to the 25-year projection.
the proceeds must be 223,640,274,200.00
then we divide it by the number of LuncTax tokens we issue, to know what the price should be for each LuncTax token.
all proceeds will be burned, instantly, and we are talking about 3.46% of the total supply.
Obviously hype, attention to the chain, trading volumes of this new token will increase the benefits.

[Kryptobia]

How is this different from all the bsc “luncburn” scam coins?
You are free to create it if you want but i doubt the chain will sponsor it.

[babymonkeymusk]

I have the translator does not translate well, or you do not read the proposal or do not understand.
I don’t earn anything.
no individual earns anything.
The community issues this token.
the community sells this token.
the community burns the proceeds.
Instead of selling, should the amount of lunc be sent to the d3ad wallet and based on the amount sent will the wallet receive the equivalent in LuncTax? little changes. the important thing is the concept.
and the concept is to securitize the 0.2% tax. divide the law into many small pieces (whether they are tokens, or nft it does not matter). and sell it to whoever wants to buy it.
burn the proceeds. either you burn it after the sale or you have to send the coins to the wallet first and then you get the token or the nft which is little change.
So you just burned what the tax would have burned in years of burn (at the current rate) and now the tax revenue no longer goes to the d3ad wallet but goes to the holders or stakers (that would have to be decided) of these tokens or nfts.
and you ask me how is it different?
seriously?

[Kryptobia]

So i really don´t see how this coin will help LUNC Instead of burning lunc you want to back your useless token to create some magical value for it. What happens when you have sold all tokens? No more proceeds to burn lunc, or are you going to mint it forever?

[babymonkeymusk]

Lunch holders make money from burns.
the same burns that the 0.2% tax should cause, but which are reduced because there is little movement in the supply chain.
we sell the expectation that this volume will increase and meanwhile burn between 2-5% of the total circulating supply at a time, let trading this cryptocurrency help increase volume and contribute to further burns. We further tax the trade in this currency, so that part of the tax right goes back to the community (obviously in reasonable percentages) and we derive the maximum possible benefit from it.
LuncTax will have a speculative and real component instead of the tokens you mention.
It is also a temporary token, the taxes will be eliminated sooner or later, hopefully. for this reason I wrote that the only problem is having to set a predefined deadline for transparency towards the holder of this token, alternatively a refund could be established (perhaps denominated in dollars) if the tax were removed sooner.
you understand the advantage of making this choice right?
I have no direct interest, as I wouldn’t arrange the sale, issue it or anything. The community should do that, I assume the L1 team would take care of everything at that point.
These responses have no way of improving my proposal nor can they be considered critical, because they do not respond to what is being proposed.

@Kryptobia

So i really don´t see how this coin will help LUNC Instead of burning lunc you want to back your useless token to create some magical value for it. What happens when you have sold all tokens? No more proceeds to burn lunc, or are you going to mint it forever?

Evidently you don’t understand that from the proceeds from the sale of the token you have burned what the tax at the current rate would burn in 20-30 years.
there are tables. I invite you to watch them.
It means that even if we sell 100% of the tax, for what is the current situation we are anticipating 20-30 years of burn.
Furthermore:

1. we are not obligated to sell 100% of the tax. we can securitize 50%, 60%, whatever percentage we want.
2. we can tax (at a reasonable rate) trading on the LuncTax token (which should be listed in a dex on chain), then recover some of those tax entitlements. Mind you:
   the purchase of the Lunc fee would involve the payment of:

• swap fees for liquidity provider
• transaction gas
• 0.2% tax
• trading tax (paid in LuncTax) (amount to be decided), I was thinking of some always negligible percentage such as 0.1%
  exchanging this token would increase volume, then taxes, then burns.
  more taxes means higher token value, then more interest, then more trading, then more volume, then more taxes, then more burns.
  Thanks also to the small tax on trading, part of the tax right returns to the Community Pool, which can decide whether to sell the token and burn the proceeds (at that point revalued, thanks to its speculative component), collect the taxes collected for financial purposes or burn the taxes collected.

Do you see anything now?

[babymonkeymusk]

@ek826 @RedlineDrifter @Jagmot-Allnodes @Clan @ClassyCrypto
I don’t know who else to tag, please take a look at what I propose, it’s a “financial artifice” but it’s a product that would sell. It might need tweaking, but perfecting it might help the cause.

[hice]

My proposal different.

[Kryptobia]

@babymonkeymusk

Evidently you don’t understand that from the proceeds from the sale of the token you have burned what the tax at the current rate would burn in 20-30 years.

At what price will you sell the tokens?

[babymonkeymusk]

I shouldn’t be setting the price, I’m just making assumptions. I would answer you at the highest possible price. I repeat the sale should not be conducted by me, the token must be issued by the community, I assume that the L1 Team should take care of it.

[Kryptobia]

They have more important things to focus on

[babymonkeymusk]

But am I proposing something that is my whim or am I putting an idea on the table, from which the community benefits? I realize that if you are not someone in this community you are not taken seriously. The lack of blockchain and programming skills does not mean that you cannot have a good idea, or the skeleton of a good idea that needs fixing. people drool when they read “we set 1.2% off chain tax” “let’s raise the tax so it burns more” all utopian “solutions”. what I propose instead starts from us and gives short-term results, because we are selling something to someone. it would be nice to have a constructive debate on this. “they have better things to do” as if I’m their spokesperson, oh well I’ll probably sit back and see how things play out. at the end of the speeches I’m interested in making money and not that my proposal is heard or anything else, but if someone thinks they have a good idea, they propose it, because everyone benefits from it, no other reason, but if this is the quality of the speeches , not even wasting time.

[babymonkeymusk]

I invite you to read:

DFLunc LitePaper

DFLunc Protocol III:

DFLunc Protocol III is smart contract that users can obtain reward through adding DFC liquidity. 5% DFC will be charged as Protocol fee.

70% profit from validator will send to reward pool for Protocol III. Therefore, the reward APR depends on the amount of LUNC staked to DFlunc validator.
I was wondering how this vlaidatore had taken so many proxies in a short time and how he burned so many luncs and well he’s a genius.
What I’ve proposed to do with the fee is basically doing it with the rewards of its validator node.
Imagine if his proxies reached those of all nodes, his token, which gives the right to 70% of the profit he makes with his validator goes to the holders, the value of his token if it were listed would skyrocket even if only people imagine it could be like this or if there was an increase in proxies. He would like to mean an increase in trading and volume at the same time, therefore in taxes.
At the same time by keeping that 30% for himself he will have increased his personal earnings, because without selling that 70% he would not have all those proxies, and thanks to the burns he also earns indirectly, together with us it is obvious.
It actually makes no sense to make trading of its currency available, it would discourage people from burning, but if you divide the tax and sell it, it’s a different matter.

[Kryptobia]

I already have, what is your point?

[babymonkeymusk]

That if people delegate to this validator, people have an incentive to burn lunc to get his coin that if staked entitles you to the rewards, the more delegations he receives, the more people are encouraged to burn and thanks to this move he will receive more delegations than it would otherwise.
SO this validating without doing anything with 100% would probably receive less than the current 30% because now people delegate to him.
secondly, his coin is not listed, but if it had limited supply and was listed, trading in this coin would skyrocket if the proxy % increased, or if people thought the proxy might increase (because they would get more rewards from his holdings)
Now reverse this with the tax and see why what I’m proposing makes sense.
Other validators could do something like this: “sell” 25%(for example) of the profits they get from delegations, create a token(x) for every Lunc sent to d3ath wallet which entitles them to that 25% rewards, if rewards obtained are not to your liking (sooner or later the token will be too inflated and there will be more tokens for the same amount of rewards if these do not grow) get double the rewards if you burn the token(X)
so if you hold it you have your 25% share otherwise your 50% one off share, that should keep dilution at bay. But keep on burning. Always. The nice thing is that they still earn indirectly from the burns and in notoriety. Marketing at 0 cost I would say.
Before you tell me this is like it is staked:

1. for some strange reason, there will always be someone who wants to try this
2. if I burn a lunc and I’m the only fool to have token(x) that entitles me to 25% validator rewards, I get them all by burning a lunc.
   this to exaggerate and make you understand the convenience that there could be