then one day it could depeg enough to force sellers to sell at a huge loss and I don’t think people would go back any further if there are better alternatives.
In my opinion it’s a big “if” like the “death spiral” one for maintaining the old system’s peg. In essence, either it works or it decrees complete failure. I don’t think the market accepts this indirect coercion dictated by the tax to keep the currency or to give the big chunk to the protocol by amplifying its loss on what was supposed to be a stable currency. I’m skeptical about long-term success. If it were to be adopted, I hope over time the peg management strategy will be improved, which will eliminate taxes in whole or in part.
If a CEX tries to implement the algorithm but introduces an unknown serious bug in their code resulting in something akin to a death spiral, will it only impact their CEX seriously, or will it potentially also bring down the main LUNC blockchain?
In my opinion, at this stage, the demand for the coin will be. But, as soon as the price rises, all early investors will sell the asset. even with a horse commission. They will sell, cross themselves, and breathe a sigh of relief, wiping the sweat from their foreheads.
And it’s good if there are buyers for such a volume.
Any token have 50-100-150x (untilmited) potential.
Today we haven’t USTC staking, only distribution. Are you ready to send Oracle to USTC staking before? It would also help to return some USTC from exchanges to the chain.
Maybe first create a demand, before strangle with taxes? No?
USTC, if repegged, has a limit of 50x.
At 2 cents today, target is a dollar.
This discussion isn’t about speculative assets.
I am often baffled how easily you switch your mindset, like you aren’t the same person.
Taxes and fees have had no effect on volume. The taxes we have are literally nothing compared to many of the chains out there.
Hell, most “meme” type coins that are pushing upwards with daily volumes similar to ours and adaptation in babysteps have 10% buy and 12-15% sell tax. I hear it’s a sin to name any other crypto, as it could be regarded as schilling, but Elons bird transmuted to a dog and dog chains are common these days.
Heck, I paid 8 dollars in gas fees just to buy 35 dollars worth of a token yesterday on Ethereum. You want to tell me that tax killed anything but the Communities spirit due to the bickering, micromanaging and infighting?
Go through the history of chains volume and you’ll see a spike last year when staking got re-introduced, then we had burn narrative being schilled heavily. The one dollar by 2022 was a trending topic across plaftorms.
I do not know how much you have invested or how often do you trade or what is your background, but the miniscule tax we have is nothing.
Off-chain does not have burn tax. The trading off-chain does not have tax. It has gas fees.
The burn tax is from wallet to wallet transaction. We are one of the cheapest chains out in the whole ecosystem.
Get a basic understanding of what charity we are still doing on the expense of this chain, just so traders can make their profits.
As to USTC - go read through the proposal again. This time put some thought into it.
The token: A stable.
If you sell below peg - you will be taxed accordingly.
If you buy below peg - no tax.
“Oh, but volume will be killed.” Of course it will for a time. You are going from a highly volatile, useless, speculative value token to a stable asset that holds a certain value. It’s not meant to be traded for speculative value like you do with LUNC. It’s meant to be held as a utility. To have same value at all times.
Sure, some arbirtrage options will exist, but I don’t know of any stable coin that is traded daily for massive profits since the volatility is going to be extremely low. As it should be.
I hold stable assets in my wallet since their idea is to be a replacement for my fiat. Not so I could have a fun day guessing when I should buy or sell.
The volume for a stable comes from it’s utility. The need for it comes from it’s utility.
Would the following be of any worth in your proposal?
If the price of USTC falls below its pegged value, can we increase the interest rate on USTC in order to incentivize users to buy it., which will increase demand and help to push the price back up towards its pegged value. This will make holding USTC more attractive to investors and users.
This is because the higher interest rate provides an additional incentive for users to hold the UST, as they can earn a higher return on their investment compared to holding the underlying asset, in this case USD. I guess this would inadvertently affect the Oracle pool. So, we have the need to definitely increase the OP as you alluded to in your proposal.
Isn’t it possible for you to contact the CEx’s already? they may have suggestions that could improve the offer or we can quickly learn their approach. I’m asking so I don’t waste time. probably the testing phase will take quite a long time.Thanks for work.
The ideas sound good , but if the proposers and devs are un-doxxed then that’s a red alert for me.
DAOs are still a relatively new and evolving technology, and as with any new innovation, there are are challenges and risks involved. DAOs are vulnerable to certain types of fraudulent activities, including “the draining of liquidity”. The smart contract fiasco with TERRA is a perfect example. We have too many bad actors to attempt a re-peg without some level of central authority. I would believe that we will have independent audits for the codes.If wallets are used they must be multi-sig wallets and we must have decentralized decision making processes.
Sounds good and obviously there are going to be some negatives, trying to find the faults in a proposal only makes it stronger. There will be hurdles.
Is there any room to implement Ed’s AI mechanics.
Personally I think Coinbase will be a hard nut to crack. They’ve never been interested in Lunc and have their own issues with WLUNA.
@sidj Lets keep the topic for USTC repeg and civil.
@arunadaybasu Everyone is Rabbi. Every account is fake. Agora is here as your soap box. Be happy and quiet. You caught the goat. Let’s drop the subject now.
Shorting means you are borrowing funds at a price - if price depriciates - you pay the loan back at a cheaper cost and pocket the difference.
You do not end up owning more.
Investing in an asset and selling it off does not constitute “shorting”. Same as simply buying and holding doesn’t mean you are longing it.
It doesn’t require you to be a trader to know the basic lingo. Can use Google if you’re unsure what you are talking about.
Use the personal message function if you folks have more wild tinfoil thoughts who is Rabbi, who’s a bot, who is a drawn up character in their own fictional world and who is just mentally unstable.
Stop with the 4chan, please.
The main issue for this proposal is that it is cutting really deep into sellers to penalize them for selling USTC.
An executed trade requires both buyer and seller to agree on the price, while this proposal’s protocol simply transfer all the burden to anyone that trades outside of the PEG, this is not how free market should work and not sure if CEX especially Binance that focus on protecting investors ( at least this is what they brand their image ) would support such protocol that harm investors. Eventually everyone would at some point be the seller, there needs to be a buyer on the other end for the trade to execute. The people that get harmed the most by this protocol would be the ones that fomo to get out in extreme market conditions.
The most important point is we lack use case for USTC now. If speculative buy pressure is enough to push the price up, we would have already repeg and would not be sitting here discussing for solution. The protocol seriously limited USTC’s investor’s ability to get in and out of USTC with “fair” value market decided instead of manipulating the price of USTC. We need to build up asset for collateral for USTC to raise the intrinsic value, not just locking up investor’s money in USTC and penalizing them heavily on deviating from PEG.
USTC staking / saving vault is a good idea, provides a use case for USTC. But people will eventually take out and release these back in circulating supply, this is not a long term solution.
Don’t get me wrong, the product is good, but how the product generate the money to distribute to the staker is the point I strongly disagree. Taxing sellers to generate the yield they earned that they will eventually become a seller… This just doesn’t sound right.
