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.
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.
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)âŚ
The rest of the proposal would indefinitely stabilize the supplies of Lunc & Ustc and create dependency between them. A whole new stablecoin design thatâs 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?
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 doesnât create value and doesnât 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, etcâŚ) so we can tax the transactions.