The Oracle pool is decreasing, but there are options to delay this and replenish the pool, such as the recently passed 5x gas fee, as well as potential further increases as discussed in Ed’s Mo Money medium article. No USTC is not linked to LUNC, aside from in the past. I reject your false prediction LUNC will inevitably be replaced. It’s strange you state your opinion like it’s a fact. Burning the LUNC supply will greatly increase its price. This should be the focus. Burning USTC will also increase its price. There is no objective need to repeg USTC. It can be $5 or whatever and be its own coin. Legislation is being considered against algorithmic stablecoins specifically due to the UST failure. This needs to be considered. LUNC has great staking (which can at least be prolonged), is deflationary with strong community support for burns, and will continue to increase in value as the supply goes down and it reaches technical parity with Luna V2. I reject the premise that LUNC needs to engage in potentially fatal discovery experiments to gain value. Hence my question to the author of this proposal, he suggested we must take his path and pass his proposal or LUNC will race to zero. To suggest such a thing is wrong and is quite manipulative, and his comments on if it goes bad as basically “Oh well I learned something new”, does not engender trust or confidence. I’ve read several of these types of proposals and they are almost always poorly communicated and are very vague on the often extreme risks associated. For highly consequential proposals to pass governance and achieve community support they require clear communication, well understood risks, trust and confidence in the proposal and the proposer.
Hence my question to the author of this proposal, he suggested we must take his path and pass his proposal or LUNC will race to zero.
Where will new money come from? You raise gas fees, but if your fees are not greater than the rate that you deplete the oracle rewards, you are running net negative. What is the alternative plan?
The money can come from transaction fees by gas and by transaction tax by burn tax. We can do a 90/10% burn/CP with the burn tax. If CP hits over a set cap it will be 50% burn and 50% oracle pool. Thereby just using LUNC on-chain funds what we need, both CP for development and the Oracle pool. The tax is setup to prioritise burns, prioritise CP to the cap, then overflow to Oracle. All is automated, is simple, and parameterised. We can tinker with the exact amounts. Ed wrote in his article we can raise gas more than 5x, up to 60x and still be cheap. We just passed 5x raise wait until we get data about that and consider viability for raising it further if suitable. Consider Ed’s chart from his Medium article:
The oracle pool will decline but will not run out any time soon. We can replenish it to slow the decline rate. The returns right now are around 21% per annum on staking which is huge compared to traditional finance (including LUNC and USTC rewards). The best bank gives like around 4% PA. If we can keep above 10% as long as possible that’s still good, especially as LUNC rises in price. That’s a huge draw for the chain so slowing the decline is good to focus on. A raise in the transaction burn tax is good, because stakers will still withdraw rewards to spend regularly, and don’t care about a higher tax unless they move their entire holdings.
So to summarise I would suggest doing the easier, simpler, straightforward, less risky options to fund the chain. Double on-chain tax at least to 0.4%. Set up a 90/10% split for the tax to burn/CP. Set a cap on the CP for 1 or 2 billion or whatever is suitable for 3 to 6 months, rest overflows 50% burn 50% oracle pool. This would increase burns, increase CP and Oracle funding, no game breaking changes, can be adjusted with future price gains and volume changes. We don’t need outside funding we are a 1 billion dollar chain that needs to tap into appropriate use of transaction tax/gas. That’s my thoughts on it.
The Oracle pool is decreasing, but there are options to delay this and replenish the pool, such as the recently passed 5x gas fee, as well as potential further increases as discussed in Ed’s Mo Money medium article.
Do the math on it. We need funding for the chain itself (development, infra). We would need to fill OP.
The 5x gas fee increase certainly helps, but can’t stretch it as far as you imagine.
You mention vaguely “other options” - present them.
It’s strange you state your opinion like it’s a fact. Burning the LUNC supply will greatly increase its price.
This is a belief. Not a fact. I do share the same belief, yet the mechanism to burn it is lacking.
Ambiguously saying “let’s burn LUNC” without having any meaningful way to do so is the same as just wishful thinking.
Repeg is one option and if you wanted LUNC burn to be the focus - then there you go. This one does it.
LUNC has great staking (which can at least be prolonged), is deflationary with strong community support for burns, and will continue to increase in value as the supply goes down and it reaches technical parity with Luna V2
Again, this is not a statement of any fact. You believe the parity can help and the support for burns is also based on “something” that you failed to mention earlier. We can rely on the chain tax and gas fees, but these will do little in the next decade or two.
The community support is based on hype and previous highs that LUNA reached alongside the help of USTC. Forgetting ones history and hoping to carve out a better future without any meaningful understanding of the basic premise we find ourselves in does not really make it competitive or worthwile in the long run.
I reject the premise that LUNC needs to engage in potentially fatal discovery experiments to gain value
You are free to reject any notion. LUNC itself is potentially fatal discovery at the moment and anyone who has bought in during the crash or post crash has done it on the basis that this has the potential to fail and take any investment with it. No more guarantees of 20% APR or backed stables. This is entirely pure gamble.
You can read these statements as facts or personal beliefs. Truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
.
I presented my proposal in a new thread. This is to set the groundwork for good burns, community pool and oracle pool funding. The next step once the foundation is laid is to seek CEX participation in the off-chain burn tax again. Our pressure as a community resulted in Binance burning their fees. Further pressure may result in much more, perhaps Binance increasing burns, other exchanges adopting also. Once we have good on-chain funding sources then we can consider other proposals but being cautious about risk.
Much obliged. I’ll check it out.
Well, if we have a plan for transactions to actually happen in the first place, by all means, would love to see it. Right now arbitrage trading via forex and/or with LUNC or deprecated assets is the only thing that someone can do.
Or buy NFTs, I guess.
I will be posting a pretty interesting agora post, would love to hear your feedback, hehe kinda nervous first agora discussion.
We don’t NEED more transactions. We have enough right now for our needs as a chain. As price increases LUNC volume will naturally increase and thus transactions. I don’t care about NFTs and most people don’t either. Most people are not day traders either. I’m not saying to ignore those things but they aren’t the primary focus. If staking, one of the big draws of the chain, is kept attractive people will send their coins to stake on Station. They will pull rewards daily or often to spend, thereby subjecting them to on-chain tax/gas. The stuff you are suggesting and dapps etc is like the icing on top of the cake, but it should be carefully thought out without major risk. A wise transaction/gas fee set-up to fund burn, CP and oracle pool (the 3 primary pillars of LUNC) is the body and foundation of the cake, which we need for LUNC. We will see how the new 5x gas fee goes, but it’s already suggested it may not be enough to fund the CP itself. Then we are looking at needing more funding, so my proposal covers these things. Anyway I’ll leave you to it with your proposal.
This explanation doesn’t really answer our question. It seems to really just be stepping around the question of how it isn’t market manipulation by trying to argue semantics. At the end of the day, a price is being directly manipulated in a completely arbitrary manner that isn’t pinned to any market dynamics, to achieve an arbitrary goal.
From a supply and demand perspective, after the oracles the validator are running have taken the median price from every other exchange out there and submitted it to the chain for voting, the ERM would then disagree with the result that has been derived from the wider market in an entirely arbitrary manner and choose it’s own price because of… “well… we really really want the price to be this instead just because, okay?”.
It completely breaks market dynamics because price no longer becomes a function of supply and demand, but instead a function of wishful thinking, and it introduces more vectors for exploitation then it does benefit, so it seems to be an asymmetric bet where if we’re right we win small, but if we’re wrong we lose big.
All this concept in it’s current iteration seems to do is intentionally create market inefficiencies in an arbitrary manner for arbitragers to exploit instead of having arbitragers find those inefficiencies organically in the market and exploit them accordingly. If the market inefficiency isn’t naturally created as a result of market dynamics, but is instead created intentionally in a direct violation (and response) of what the market has come to agreement on in terms of a price, what is it that makes that not market manipulation?
I’m not denying it isn’t market manipulation, I’m just saying to me it doesn’t seem that much different than arbitrary monetary policy. What justified inflation in the first place?
The Mint module basically says: based on how much we have bonded, mint 0 or more. Is protocol token dilution market manipulation? Either way, what makes it ok with respect to similar enactments of monetary policies (taxes) or changing of fees (arbitrarily increasing gas rate)?
It doesn’t get to be “policies for thee, but not for me.”
It completely breaks market dynamics because price no longer becomes a function of supply and demand, but instead a function of wishful thinking, and it introduces more vectors for exploitation then it does benefit, so it seems to be an asymmetric bet where if we’re right we win small, but if we’re wrong we lose big.
I don’t disagree with you there. Unfortunately, over time I am not getting the impression that much is wanted on this chain except maintenance; few are concerned about the state of UST, but maybe it is for the better. Perhaps the attempt here is in vain. It seems more likely as time goes on that I’ll simply translate the ERM over onto a Layer-2 protocol for public use instead.
I appreciate the feedback nonetheless. I think the more important discussion regarding what constitutes market manipulation – especially as it relates to monetary policy – is important, but I will have no part in that discussion.
How will the price increase if there’s no incentive to buy at the highs?
The higher the price, the less likely you are to multiply your bag by some crazy margin.
Higher the price, less token’s actually bought.
Look beyond the current situation and account for the future 
We do need more transactions as those actually fund the chain and the validators/stakers. Txn fees are the only mechanic that we have to fund ourselves.
You glossing over it doesn’t change it.
We need to fund the OP to keep staking attractive, that is a big draw to the chain. Therefore we need more funding from transaction fees (burn tax and gas) so we can slow the OP decline. Staking on LUNC is a huge draw with like 20% PA compared to maybe 3% in a bank. It’s like Anchor before the crash. If we can fund the OP it will be good for higher transactions and utility for the chain, as staking is utility (passive income). People will buy at higher prices if we have good burns and community engagement with burns. LUNC is very cheap now. We already pumped to $0.0006 on burn hype. Burns allowed us to have Binance support. If we continue pushing burns we could get even more CEX support. The community only gave 1.2% 3 weeks. I’m not glossing over anything my proposal is to use transaction fees and 10% of the burn tax to fund both the CP and OP. It’s the best source of funding as no outside entity is required.
NoNoNo~It’s not called market manipulation.It’s called central bank currency policy adjustment. : )
If real world central bank never manipulate currency policy,our economy will be free fall.
@SwordDemon Isn’t it too overrated to compare Luna Classic to Central Bank? Once Binance makes an announcement about stop burn or remove list, the price may drop to half or more. Objectify your values. They will make a decision when the direction of development of the chain goes in a strange direction and that’s what TFL and newLUNA want. If LUNC died, all community move in LUNA.
Try to learn some basic economy & finance & crypto economy knowledge.
Don’t think any thing you don’t understand is weird.
Learning let us smarter.
Learn first that price collusion is illegal in a free market economy. Just because you’re stubborn doesn’t mean the world allows everything. Looking at your nickname and your knowledge level of use of words, it seems clear that you are a teenager. Do you think a minor is allowed to be excused?
Being stupid is not a sin, but steal is a sin. It was impressive the nonsense of comparing a chain of no core developers and a central bank. You guys are just thieves trying to steal money from the Oracle vault. No matter how hard you try to wrap it up yourself, others judged you guys just more thieves than TR. Rubbish that only covets money without thinking about developing chains. 
Are you joking?Steal what?What I can steal?
TR this TR that,TR is none of my business.
We are just talking about how to revive this ecosystem.
I really don’t what to argue with you.Just recommend you can learn more from this situation.
If you always think like that.I have nothing to say.That’s all.
Ok, but staking is only attractive beause it’s risk-free yield from exit taxes on Anchor/Terra capitulations in May. The tax makes the base chain very difficult to use, like an expensive and strictly worse version of Venmo. There’s no reason to use the chain except to extract the RFY and go somewhere else. i.e., not sustainable.
Learn first that price collusion is illegal in a free market economy.
If we change the tax rate, we are “colluding” (not really, because it’s mostly public) to alter how the capital of Terra is valued. If we introduce an inflation rate, we alter how the capital of Terra is valued. If we change the gas rates, we alter how the capital of Terra is valued.
It doesn’t strike me as any different as just labeling it “monetary policy” instead, which is pretty much the only PMF that LUNC has at this rate. Tuesday’s discussion will bring this up, as LUNC will need to re-issue (read: mint) new Terra in the future if there isn’t significant transactions occurring. Forex trading is the other obvious PMF, but it’s not that scalable right now.
The origin of the Oracle pool funds is irrelevant now isn’t it? They are LUNC’s and we have them now. They are being paid out and the staking rewards are over 20% per annum. We have a gifted Anchor-like mechanism already, called staking. Do you have a plan to replenish the oracle pool or do you want to just let it fade away? It’s a huge draw to the chain, passive income is probably the best utility available. We should preserve its value as long as possible. The longer the staking rewards are good % then as LUNC price rises the more valuable they are $ wise. More people will stake. More people pull out rewards daily, there are many transactions from that alone. Oracle pool should be a big focus IMO.