PROPOSAL: set 1.5% on chain tax. O.8% burning, 0.5% oracle pool , 0.2% community pool. With optional withelisting dapps for don’t lose both Who burn all and Who Need low tax(withelist to
0.2% tax[0.1% burn, 0.07% Oracle pool and 0.03% community pool]). Can be discussed also for separate partial withelist to 0.5% or others tax value.
MOTIVATION: recently proposal passed have good basics(#11513 1/4 to 4/4) but Is not enough for save the Oracle pool decline(200millions Daily) and burn rate. For save Oracle pool with actual parametres we Need 2 billions taxed daily(10% to Oracle pool, 0.05% tax) wich Is difficult also with chain proliferation with future parity and dapps. I agree partially with Jesus Is lord proposal(1.5 tax , 1.2 burn, 0.15 Oracle, 0.15 community and withelist dapps) a but we Will Need ever 2 billions taxed daily( tax Is higher but rapport Is ever 10% to Oracle pool)
Finalize: With my proposal we Will Need only 600 millions Daily lunc taxed(33% to Oracle pool) to save staking rewards. I Hope we can reach this volume of tax with future parity and dapps coming.
Yes but Is not enough to save Oracle pool(staking rewards) and lunc demand. My proposal is principally for save the staking rewards and little more for burn and community pool
Increasing tax (again) in the state of the chain makes no logical sense. It would be different if we had a semi-booming economy and lots of transactions aside of staking withdraws, but that is not the case here. The tax should not be touched again for at least a quarter.
There is also no current code to feed the OP through current blockchain transactions. AFAIK, what was feeding the OP in the past was strictly swap fees. I would invest time and money into re-working the algo. This would require a lot of time, research, marketing, and building value to the swapable assets, but it’s a vital part of the chain.
This is a no from me as there are more important matters to focus on.
Don’t believe everything you read, specially coming from fanatics. We just don’t know if it will be enough or not.
We are on the third iteration of the burn tax (1.2, 0.2, now 0.5) and a proposal to split the tax income between the distribution module and the burn wallet was already approved. We just need let the devs to their job and keep building on the chain.
100% agree with reXx. As i said before and will say again in the many tax increase threads, the tax is irrelevant. Even if you make it 50% if there is no utility that drives on chain volume its meaningless, you are just driving away the actual users for the benefit of the CEX traders.
The only way the burn tax will do anything will be if its implemented on and off chain at the same time so the whole volume is taxed which wont happen unless the tax is a lot smaller like 0.01% in which case it would still increase the burn 10-100times.
Give a few weeks to the new 0.5% tax (150% increase than the previous) and see how it affects the burn rate (keep in mind that prices are very low so the higher the price the less the burns will be).
That being said i did agree with all 4 proposals just because the tax split increased the community pool’s income 4x and IMO that was the only positive thing that was really necessary.
A piece of advice, if you are in this project for the burns , you are wasting your time, there are far better burn meme coins that have a lot bigger burn rates and whatever. The real value of Lunc (Imo of course) is the lightning fast and cheap transactions and the unique for the Cosmos mechanism that is currently broken.
What some people fail to understand is that demand is what drives the projects forward ( at least not the hype meme ones) , in order to have demand you need to give people a use case that is worth the money.
i bet you have less than 5,000,000 lunc and you talk like a despot, just tell the guy that the oracle pool at the current rate has enough funds for the next 2 years.
at least he undertook to word the text unlike you with this sterile comment. @Luca_Celebrano don’t worry at the moment the oracle pool is not a problem, but an off topic question, can i ask if you are italian? from the name I would say yes
yes, it’s an obvious no, but he’s clearly new, I think it’s better to explain things to him, rather than attack him, he’s still committed and made his own reasoning trying to make a contribution, this type of propensity is to be appreciated. just explain to him why what he says can’t be done.