To burn 12% staking rewards Lunc (Proposal ID: 5176)

You’re not getting the whole value-add-swap concept ~ and it looks like you may never psychologically grasp it…

How do you touch the coins of the majority of the coins who are sheltered by the CEXs?

How do you ensure that it’s fair to loyalists who are on Terra Station while those who are traders and hiding in the CEXs reaping rewards, doing nothing?

Me thinks you do not grasp the implications of what your proposing.

Its all great to come up with ideas but they do need additional analytical and meaningful thought of potential end consequences.

All great in theory to have fanciful concepts however this would create an unstable blockchain and risks a deadchain without investors prepared to stake.

You still have not addressed why 10% of the community sacrifice with all the risk and the other 90% does not ?

Clearly indicated that this is only for the staking rewards, you should be aware that all the transactions for staking rewards are no burned on they did not include 1.2% tax for any transaction involving staking or staking rewards.

I will be real surprised there will be anyone who will have the coin remained staked if there is such a rule.

1 Like

I disagree.

Name any implications you think of…? And also include your better option’s other than this…?

Perhaps go read my CONSOLIDATION Proposal

1 Lunc for 10 held CONSOLIDATION - Burn 90% INSTANTLY - Governance & Proposals - Terra Research Forum

So instead of burning extra, you want to burn existing… weird.

Nothing weird about it at all.
Demonstrates to me perhaps your lack of experience or exposure to such capital restructuring mechanisms. Private and Stockmarket Listed Companies do this all the time.

It just requires some basic comprehension.

IN SIMPLE TERMS

BEFORE CONSOLIDATION
You have 100 notes and each is worth $1 in your pocket.
You therefor have $100 in Value in your pocket.

AFTER CONSOLIDATION of 1 for 10
You would have 10 notes and each would be now worth $10.
You still have $100 in Value in your pocket.

The value of LUNC is dictated by the Market Cap.
Market Cap divide by Total Supply of LUNC equals PRICE per LUNC

After the Consolidation, the Value in the Market Cap will likely increase with such a drastic supply reduction.
OTHERWISE THERE IS NO POINT IN REDUCING SUPPLY!

This Consolidation WILL Burn / Remove 6 Trillion LUNC from current supply INSTANTLY.

No one is disadvantaged and no one gains an advantage - MUCH FAIRER OUTCOME
Reaches all Holders including the Whales.

1 Lunc for 10 held CONSOLIDATION - Burn 90% INSTANTLY - Governance & Proposals - Terra Research Forum

I would rather keep my existing coins and burn staking rewards (would take longer than your idea and would get to the same result) and get to the same max supply (10 billion) with more Lunc in my wallet (more value in the end). Of course, we need to stabilize the system’s core to strengthen/increase the market cap after attracting great utilities.

What part dont you understand ?

You still RETAIN VALUE after the Consolidation
Reduces the supply - NOT the value.
Provides collateral and can fully resource the LUNC Blockchain NOW!
VALUE CREATION becomes much faster instead of taking many many many years into the future.

Yours and others ideas to tax staking rewards is flawed.

Staking Rewards is from commitments of 10% of the community who take on the Risk.
Burning rewards disadvantages Stakers.

The other 90% of the community who do not stake are provided with an unfair advantage and do not participate in any of the Risk.

Do you see the flaw ?
Stakers are what provide stability to the blockchain.

MOST IMPORTANTLY WITH A 1 FOR 10 CONSOLIDATION.
No one is disadvantaged and no one gains an advantage - MUCH FAIRER OUTCOME
Reaches all Holders including the Whales.

That risk is the burden that leaders take on. That risk exists no matter collecting or burning those rewards…

The risk is the burden stakers take on, not leaders, just people who stake.

The RISKS for stakers and non-stakers are NOT the same.
There are substantial differences in the Financial Risk.

Stakers have lockup periods of 21 days so no chance of getting out in the event of a market crash.
Stakers provide stability to the blockchain.
VERSUS
Non stakers who can mass rush to exit and provide the least stability to the blockchain.

If you stake, you can do as you please with your rewards, donate, burn, redelegate, sell to offset or nuetralise your dollar cost averages etc. That becomes your FREE choice.

To tax a reward that makes it unattractive to stake, would many people unstake their positions and this would put the blockchain at risk.

END OF THE DAY - Would be a HARD NO with VETO upon any tax on rewards from staking.

If we can stabilize Terra Classic’s core and bring utility to the ecosystem - that 21 day lockup risk wouldn’t be as much of an issue…

The 21 day lockup is still a risk, no matter what and will always be a risk, especially with current world affairs and any other potential extreme events.

The most obvious RISK that should be staring everyone in the face right now and the mind boggles anyone has to be reminded of the recent CRASH.

Oh so easily you forget about the stakers Risk and their situation when LUNA crashed.

(For the record, I did not hold any USTC or LUNC prior to the Crash)


Gold Standard of Stability.

Absolute GOLD Star Stupidity thinking a person with 10,000 LUNC would ever have equal voting power of someone who holds 100M or 1B LUNC.

Governance votes should be as per what your holdings tally up to, not 1 vote for 1 wallet.

If you want voting outcomes, increase your commitment by adding more LUNC to your wallet.

Stupidity or the solution to the PoS dilemma? The stupidity is allowing the rich to run the show…

Power to the People?

My Governance Voting Limitation Act (PoS dilemma solution) would require current whales to give up their majority-power (by voting for it) and equalize the governing power amongst the community (equally) to assure bad acting whales never crash the system again for profit… Good for all ~ unless a majority unite and create a bad acting whale (likely not going to happen - most people want stability and success)…

The rest of the proposal would indefinitely stabilize the supplies of Lunc & Ustc and create dependency between them. A whole new stablecoin design that’s free to use because of the design of its parent (lunc).

Perhaps I am stupid for thinking I can fix things? Perhaps we are doomed?

Why a random 12% of the staking rewards?

As pointed out by @DadRulesOK, delegators incur more risk than non-delegators. This creates a disincentive to delegate and to validate too (by taxing the self-delegation of the validators), thus making people remove their staked coins (and probably making some validators leave too)

The 1,2% tax already burdens the users, why create more taxes? This proposal doesn’t create value and doesn’t bring any utility.

Creating a proposal relying only on the goodwill of users is foolish.

I agree but only 9% of Lunc supply are staked, the rest are in Cex. The problem is Cex. We have to find a profitable way to get Lunc out of exchange (dapps, defi, etc…) so we can tax the transactions.

1 Like