Introduction:
I wanted to set out a series of significant changes we can implement for LUNC which will meet the needs of the chain both in terms of supply reduction, development funding, and funding of the oracle pool (staking rewards). These changes are not game breaking risky changes. These are carefully thought out changes which will be subject ideally to parameterisation (simple governance) to adapt as LUNC grows in price and volume.
The summary of the proposed governance changes are as follows:
Increase the on-chain burn tax to 0.4% from 0.2%.
Within the 0.4% tax, code a split 90% to the burn wallet and 10% to the community pool. This is 0.36% burn and 0.04% community pool.
Implement a CAP on the community pool of 2,000,000,000 LUNC (2 billion). The CAP should ideally be parameterised so we can change the cap as a community, when suitable, as the LUNC price rises.
Implement an overflow feature on the community pool so when the CAP is reached the LUNC is automatically sent 50% to the burn wallet and 50% to the Oracle pool (to fund staking).
Assess the results of the 5x gas increase which recently passed for 2 weeks to one month, and if suitable, increase further by another 5x, to 10x overall (from the initial amount it started at). The gas fees are currently split 50% to the community pool and 50% to the Oracle pool.
Effects of changes:
Increased burn rate by increasing burn tax from 0.2% to 0.36% with 0.04% going to the community pool (overall 0.4% tax).
Funding the community pool is increased beyond gas fees only (the present position), but is not a detriment to burns, most people will happily support a 90/10% split of the burn tax to fund the community pool. 0.4% is chosen because we need to increase the burns but 0.6% was recently rejected in governance. 0.4% should pose minimum disruption to on-chain volumes.
The community pool is funded to the CAP. The CAP is a comfortable necessary amount of funding for the community which can provide at current prices ($0.000164 x 2,000,000,000 LUNC) $328,000 USD of funding. This is sufficient funding for 6 months of the L1 team, and is enough at this time. I believe we should run somewhat lean in the community pool and not have excessive amounts there which can act as a honey pot to encourage unfrugal spending. This 2 billion LUNC will greatly increase in value as the price rises. The CAP can be changed by parameter proposal ideally to be lowered in the future as LUNC price rises significantly.
The funding to the community pool is increased from gas fees only at this time, to gas fees plus 10% of an increased burn tax (0.4%) which is 0.04%.
Burns are still prioritised by a 90/10% split and a 50% burn overflow for the community pool when the CAP is reached.
Oracle pool is funded directly from the overflow of the community pool, with a 50% burn and 50% oracle pool distribution for excess LUNC beyond the CAP.
The Oracle pool and community pool will be both funded more by an increase in the gas fees a further 5x (subject to at least 2 weeks to 1 month analysis to determine suitability).
Motivation for changes:
We are a 1 billion dollar blockchain even at these low prices. We must fund ourselves and not look for outside funding as a necessity. Funding must be suitable without choking the chain, and should come from well measured and implemented tax/gas fees which address our highest priorities. These priorities are BURNS, COMMUNITY POOL FUNDING, ORACLE POOL.
This proposal does not have any minting whatsoever of any burns whether manual or on-chain.
On-chain burns are currently approximately around 50 million LUNC per day with the 0.2% tax. This proposal would increase that to around 90 million burned per day on average.
From the burn tax with 10% to the community pool would result in about 10 million LUNC per day or 300 million per month to the community pool. This is 900 million LUNC per 3 months, enough to fund the L1 team alone, even without the gas fees contribution. This means we would hit the community pool CAP of 2 billion in approximately 3 months (we have 1 billion currently) and the overflow is evenly distributed between the burn wallet and the oracle pool.
This proposal is not risky. It does not cause game breaking changes like some other proposals. We don’t need outside funding as a necessity. We can adjust the figures as the price of LUNC changes. We are setting an important funding baseline for LUNC to have good burns, good but not excessive community pool funding (no honey pot), and funding for the oracle pool.
Both 50% of the community pool overflow and 50% of the gas fees goes to the oracle pool. This will slow the decline of the reduction in staking rewards, and I don’t know the math if it’s possible for us to actually grow the oracle pool, but we should at least prioritise slowing its decline. According to Ed’s Medium article “No Money, Mo’ Problems?”, we can raise gas fees even to 60x and still be cheap. Also here is a chart from Ed’s article showing the staking rewards will decline but not go to zero, even on a 10 year basis. We are currently at around 21.9% rewards rate per annum (including LUNC + USTC rewards). This is very high based on traditional finance and is a HUGE draw to the LUNC chain. The best rates you can get in banks is around 2.35% to 4% per annum. We need to prioritise replenishing the Oracle pool and slow its decline or even make it increase. This proposal will improve Oracle funding.
The implementation of changes would take numerous governance proposals, but should not be overly complicated. Each proposal should be considered as part of a sequence (1 of 5 changes).
Experienced and technical members of the community especially (and others too), please leave your feedback, it would be appreciated.
If enough support is received for this proposal, after discussion and with appropriate consultation as to technicalities, I aim to proceed to a vote/s.
Conclusion:
I believe the future of LUNC is great, and I wanted to share my proposal for what I believe would be improvements to LUNC that will carry us forward into the future in strength. The three pillars of LUNC are BURNS, COMMUNITY POOL, and ORACLE POOL (STAKING REWARDS). We can meet the needs of all three on a sustainable basis, with a sophisticated automated approach subject to parameter changes. I believe focusing on our two funding sources, the burn tax and the gas fees, and respecting the purpose of each, we can deliver a tailored and effective solution to LUNC funding, burning, and staking rewards. Thank you for your consideration.
With the increase in gas fees I discussed here (subject to analysis of the recent 5x increase result), I realise I made an error. The 5x increase we made, to increase another 5x is actually a 25x increase from the original, not a 10x increase which I intended.
Consider any further gas increase as a tentative part of this proposal subject to appropriateness and analysis of the figures for the next 2 weeks to one month (with the current 5x change). If we increase a further 2x (instead of 5x) this will bring the amount to a 10x increase overall, and that is the amount intended in the first submission of this proposal. I am open to what is a suitable rate increase based on analysis in the coming weeks. Thank you.
This proposal claims to not have risk, yet the entire calculation is based entirely on assumptions:
Assumption that .4% tax does not decrease the current volume or any future volume from trades.
Assumes that our needs are met by 328 000 USD for L1. L1 needs are based on previous proposal, not taking into account any changing variables for the future or L1 funding needs growing due to circumstances.
Assumes that the only cost for the chain is L1 development. Infrastructure is paid by TFL for now, for how long - nobody knows.
It also plays into the idea of burning funds do appreciate the value of the asset. Kinda roundabout way. Instead of having funds for development outside L1 work and for future needs, we throw the penny into a wishing fountain, hoping that this will make the ocean of pennies disappear. Rather than funding actual utility development that could or in it’s essence - should - reduce the supply en masse.
Side note: We have had 3 proposals for tax in the past 3 months. This is now the fourth.
Just like the previous proposals - they all had the same premise. Set a % based on proposers vision and hope it does some good.
This vision also goes directly against prop #11242 that recently passed (Stop LUNC Re-Minting from Burns by setting Seigniorage Reward Policy to Zero)
I didn’t say there is zero risk, I said there is no game breaking risk and the proposal is not a risky one. There is very minimal risk. To address your concerns:
There is zero minting in this proposal and it has no conflict with #11242. I even have a point in the proposal that there is zero minting here. The 10% from the tax is not by seniorage, but directly from the tax as Ed recently proposed with the 50/50, but instead of 50/50 it’s 90/10. The CP amount is not minted but is directly from the tax (see my diagram above). The code for this was already done by Zaradar recently. I am completely against minting. The proposal is a text proposal because the L1 team needs to rework the burn mechanism to direct the 90/10% directly to burn wallet/CP without any seniorage. I should have explained this more clearly.
The volume change since 1.2% to 0.2% was not much, going to be much less with 0.2% to 0.4%. Yes we need a burn tax increase as it will help with both burns and funding. This is a different rate the least extreme change proposed so far to the burn rate and we will see if the community is interested.
The $328,000 USD is only from the 10% of the 0.4% tax. Right now we only have the 5x gas fees for CP funding. My proposal is adding a lot more than this, so I’m not sure why you think my proposal doesn’t provide enough funding. This doesn’t include the gas fees so it will be much more than that. I was demonstrating basic L1 needs is covered by the 10% alone, aside from the gas fees (which I also propose to increase again). So we have 300 million a month to the CP from the 10% of the 0.4%, and 50% of the gas fees which we will find out soon exactly how much they provide, and I propose to double them if suitable. I want plenty of funding for the CP, but a 2 billion cap which overflows to burn/oracle.
I do believe in establishing a good burn rate and believe it is very important for LUNC. It shows we take burns seriously which can lead to better adoption by CEX. Reducing the supply of LUNC is a high priority, even if we are going gradually we should maximise what is reasonable to do now. Burns have proven to lead to good hype and price movement for LUNC. Instead of negging the burn movement we can champion the burn movement while also funding the CP and oracle pool, as my proposal provides.
This proposal does not stop new ideas to come, but establishes good foundational funding for burns, community pool and oracle pool (staking rewards). If a great stable idea to burn a lot more comes out later we can always consider that.
I can see very clear vision in this proposal.But I don’t want to talk the details.Because the direction of this plan is right,the oracle pool and community pool is the capital of our revival plan.Let’s be an open mind to this direction,details can be discussed.
My opinion is,how about directly sending an certain mount money from oracle pool to community pool?This method is an investment vision,and can accelerate the speed of refilling two pools.Because if we have enough dev fund,a massive development will happen.When massive dapps appear,will grow the onchain activities faster.
Upgrade antehandlers are not in voting phase as of yet.
Regardless, it’s the same sentiment: Either you remint the same coin you burned or you split the tax.
Tax split was removed. All “burn tax” was voted to be for burning.
Fiddling with tax does not equate to having same or increased volume. We have no data. You have no data. All of it is based on assumptions that the numbers you propose make sense.
02.%, 0.4%, 0.6%, 0.9% - all of these have been proposed at one point or another. Either in Governance or in the Agora comments. All of the numbers are taken out of imaginary scenarios that don’t directly harm the proposer.
Yet if you start doing thousands and thousands of transactions, the tax starts to compound. Further and further.
Then you also have the 5x gas fee on top of it - suddenly - the incentive to trade might start to dwindle.
This is why there’s time for data collection.
This idea is just the same as all the ones before: Tax, burn - repeat. Hope that it does something and if it doesn’t - oh well, I learned something new by accomplishing nothing.
Thank you for your proposal. There is nothing wrong with it as such but today I am simply of the opinion that unlike many people state our problem is not a lack of funds in the community pool. There is so many ways to fill it if need be.
The problem we have is a predatory group of Terra Rebels which is guaranteed to abuse any available funding. Until we have a clearer defined development team for the future my view its best the CP is actually empty. Burn, burn burn. Far more value in burning than paying TR another Christmas hamper payout wihtout any accountability, transparency or any intention by them to take responsibility for what they actually do for the money or the responsibility they take for LUNC.
Let’s not provide them with more avenues of exploitation. Jesus is Lord - is that another incarnation of Rabbi Terra Rebel Sock puppet? We need to clean house and take out the trash before we start accumulating valuables.
There is no minting here, I made it very clear why are you still talking about that? The vote was to end minting. There is no minting here. No vote has repudiated my proposal, despite your comments. We went from 1.2% to 0.2% with little change in volume, and going from 0.2% to 0.4% is unlikely to have a significant change in volume.
No my proposals are not the same as all that have been proposed before. A slight tax increase, 90/10 split from within the tax itself without minting, a CAP on the community pool which overflows to burns and funding the oracle pool, and further gas increase as suitable after analysis. The outcomes are predictable as I have explained in my proposal, but you are welcome to your opinion.
All spending proposals need to go through governance. My proposal involves capping the CP to 2 billion LUNC so we have enough for needed funding but not too much, this automatically overflows to burn/oracle. No, you can check my profile before suggesting I am another person.
Take a good, hard look into #11242 and #11243.
You mint or split without minting - sentiment is the same. The burn tax gets used for funding.
Then give valid arguments with data and projections why this proposal offers any meaningful change from any of the previous likeminded ones.
Peddling for burn crowd is not viable nor sustainable.
Taxing more to burn is neither. Making the chain more expensive without giving anything meaningful in return does not attract more money flowing.
This vision - how far does it see? How many years has this been planned for?
Your questions have already been answered by what I have said so far. You just keep repeating yourself. Let me explain it very clearly for you. The increase in burn tax with 10% to fund CP gives us:
Faster reduction in total supply of LUNC. This is a high priority. Burning reduces supply, do you want the supply to be reduced?
Faster funding to the CP than just gas fees (current solution).
The CAP on the CP gives the following:
No excess in CP
Funding for Oracle pool to help staking rewards and extra burns.
Automated solution which does not require additional governance votes.
The additional gas raise is subject to analysis which we only just raised 5x. Recent discussions from the gas increase proposer and other technical members of the community including Ed showed the 5x gas fees may not be enough to fund the CP.
I relied on Ed’s analysis from his medium article that the gas could be raised 60x and still be cheap, as he said. My proposal was clear after two weeks to one month from the gas raise to assess whether a further increase would be suitable. Members with the appropriate technical skills will provide that data in the coming weeks, which I already stated in my proposal.
Yes this vision for a firm foundation for LUNC funding, respecting burns (which you seem not to), funding CP, CAP overflow funding oracle/burn, which can be adjusted by parameter changes as LUNC grows in price and volume, is for the foreseeable future. You are welcome to your own opinion.
This is exactly what one can read in your proposal, yet it still does not make any sense with data to back it up.
Raise tax. You rely on volume having no discernible change from it.
Raise the tax to use antehandlers that are not being developed or worked on since props passed that removed the need for it.
And you keep pivoting from the point prop #11242 with in tandem #11243 made - Burn tax is for burning. Gas fees are for funding.
You want to regress back into a time where someomes contributions into burn fund should be nipped. Get some funding from that. Community that you claim to represent was against such an idea and theft.
Your proposed CAP makes no sense. The CP pool having funds is a necessity. Having reserves left over is absolutely critical. It having 2b now doesn’t translate into much wealth. Price appreciation however can be critical in securing liquidity for the utility we grave for. USTC comes readily to mind.
These numbers are pulled from a short sighted and very limited perspective.
CP pool situation can be looked at a date when we are positively overflowing with excess funds and we are in a position where we sustain ourselves. We aren’t even paying for our infra. Does this vision foresee the need to keep relying on others to pay for it?
Neat fact: Binance has burned some 6 million USD worth of LUNC. The effect of supply reduction being less than half a percent from total supply.
Funds used for actual L1 or L2 work - roughly less than 500k USD.
More funds to attract more developers or silly burns that don’t do much for price appreciation in current form?
Gas fees are not part of this proposal - so mentioning these or talking of what Ed said does not make your separate tax increase having more merit, since with gas fee increasing further down the line, the taxable size should decrease in turn if anything.
Otherwise you are compounding the cost of doing business even further.
Let me ask you this: If a chain you want to operate on tells you that they will keep raising the fees and taxes, mostly just to burn the supply down, yet there’s not much use for the chain itself - would you keep bringing in new money.
A reply would constitute some actual, verifiable data for sources or calculations that support your so called vision, not having to rely on trust me, bro
I said minimal volume change is likely from 0.2% to 0.4%, as from past evidence reducing from 1.2% to 0.2% did not change volumes much. That is a valid point of comparison and is not a “trust me bro”. The initial reduction of 1.2% was proposed even by L1 developers as an experiment but you suppose no further changes can be made without perfect infallible knowledge, which is nonsense. Even if the on-chain volumes decline slightly from a doubling of the burn tax this is not a problem.
You are disingenuously with ill-intentions continuing the line that I am promoting seniorage or that manual burns are being taken from, despite this being clearly against what I have said. Stop lying. This is false and clearly against all I have said. Please try harder to read what I have said. The 0.4% on chain tax is split 90/10 from the tax itself. Manual burns are not affected. There is no seniorage, no minting.
The tax anthandlers were worked on and the code was released by Zaradar on Github which he posted about on Twitter. This was futher discussed and proposed by Ed with the 50/50 split. This was put to the sidelines due to the 5x gas increase. But now by Ed’s analysis and the proposer of the 5x increase have stated the gas fees will likely not be enough to cover the CP needs, and a new funding may be needed.
As I said this vision can adjust the CAP, as the changes including the CAP are parameterised. 2 billion is sufficient for the needs of the chain at this time providing 6 months of L1 funding, and the CP would fill quickly if we also direct 10% of the burn to the CP. The CAP is an initial set which can be changed. There is no short term risk to loss of infrastructure funding by TFL. My proposal brings more funds to the CP than just the 5x gas fees alone. When the LUNC price appreciates 2 billion will be worth much more than 328k USD. Yes we gave around 900M to fund L1 for 3 months. The CAP I proposed and funding rate is more than enough for L1 funding.
Burns are not silly. Burns drive community engagement and price movement. Burns are what got us Binance’s involvement. I’ve heard from many like you who want a fat community pool, no burns and want to fund dapps and risky projects that don’t even exist. My proposal deals with three important areas. Burns. Community pool. Oracle pool (staking rewards). These are the priority.
Yes I wrote this proposal so obviously I support burning and a well funded chain by appropriate use of taxes and gas fees. The reasons I provided are well justified with appropriate explanation, despite your comments. I strongly disagree with you.
Increased burn rate by increasing burn tax from 0.2% to 0.36% with 0.04% going to the community pool (overall 0.4% tax).
That is your proposal. Split burn tax to fund CP.
Manual burns are taken from just the same as it is still subject to tax. Antehandlers are on sidelines, like you said, so your vision relies on introducing those. Those not being available, as you are aware, without any time or date when they would be - your only choice being to lead with the current implementation.
As I said this vision can adjust the CAP, as the changes including the CAP are parameterised. 2 billion is sufficient for the needs of the chain at this time providing 6 months of L1 funding, and the CP would fill quickly if we also direct 10% of the burn to the CP.
This is a broad assumption and has no source data to back it up.
You believe the needs of L1 development will remain constant throughout quarters and do no consider any other substantial funding need that may occur.
You are also relying on current pricing to propose. This would need constant governance votes to move with the shifting price of LUNC. It’s not a stable currency.
Burns are not silly. Burns drive community engagement and price movement. Burns are what got us Binance’s involvement. I’ve heard from many like you who want a fat community pool, no burns and want to fund dapps and risky projects that don’t even exist. My proposal deals with three important areas. Burns. Community pool. Oracle pool (staking rewards). These are the priority.
Burns from the proposed sources are silly as they are a gimmick. Not organic. They are mandatory and do not help in actual considerable price reduction.
We have burned 37 billion in some ~4 months. In a year we could hope to perhaps get 0.01% of total supply if we kept at it hard. In 50 years we are somewhere where our supply decreases.
To that rebuttal - it’s the utility. How to get utility? Fund it. How to get funds? Don’t burn what you have. Chicken and egg circle.
The burning is purely a gimmick that doesn’t do any considerable reductions in the actual supply, yet it does tax everyone equally and doesn’t do anything for actual funding that we discussed earlier.
So while the L1 has confirmed the change will be parameterised (I argued strongly against 50/50 and the hard code), they are still working towards its implementation. My proposal is to do 90/10 instead. But as they are making the change parameterised if the community supports we can adjust from 50/50 to 90/10.
Yes by current pricing we can easily meet the needs of L1 by a 5x gas fee and a 10% coded split of the burn tax (at 0.4%). I believe the LUNC price will go up. If it crashes then we can adjust the CAP on the CP as my proposal is that the CAP be changable by parameterisation, but to start with 2 billion I believe is suitable. You can disagree with the CAP amount or that there should even be a CAP, that’s up to you. I laid out my reasons why I believe it’s a good idea.
Burns from tax are not a gimmick, they are not silly. They are organic because they are widely supported by the community and are a necessity to burn the supply down. So what if it takes decades at current rates? Does that mean we give up? No. The community burning produces great results, and was what got Binance on-board. We can work on improving this further. My proposal doesn’t limit good ideas for burning more later by different means. It’s not quite as you put it, or you are missing a dynamic. You can’t just pour money at development teams infinitely and expect massive price gains. Price of cryptos move for different reasons than just they have good developers. LUNC is much higher in market cap than LUNA, which has more devs, $400 million in their CP, and more dapps. Why do you think that is the case? A big part of it is the burn movement you detest. My proposal supports the burn movement with great funding for devs and the Oracle pool. My proposed CAP of 2 billion may be too low for you, but I believe it’s suitable at this time and can be changed as the LUNC price grows.
We don’t have decades.
Imho, we are currently ran by hopium and by the notion that a pittance can make you a millionaire.
Yet, for that to happen - new money needs to come in. Someone needs to be willing to buy at the highs to make the old HODLER’s rich. For that - you need more than the gimmick of burns and hopium. You need actual utility.
We have no means to fund the OP pool at the moment.
In a few years the OP pool is so dry that the staking rewards are next to nothing and thus the incentive for it dies off.
You can argue how effective the burns are at the moment (which they aren’t), but you can’t argue that we are severely underfunded and aren’t even trying to get more reserves to fund any meaningful development.
L1 isn’t doing anything revolutionary at the moment. They are catching up on the maintenance and upgrades to modernize the chain. Parity is long way off still.
This vision is limited based on the past. Not looking much into the future and is only peddling for the current crowd. Not the crowd in the future.
What utility has come about after the 1.2% was dropped after 3 weeks? The volume didn’t go way up like it was claimed. You talk about hopium but your hopes rest on yet to be created dapps and utility. Can you define what that utility is? How far away is it? It’s been months since 1.2% ended and the golden utility spoken of has not arrived. Rather than working with what we have and having a decent burn tax. I proposed 0.4% because 0.6% was rejected recently. But if we can remove the tax from dapps like is being proposed I would support a return to 1.2%. I think 90/10 split of that would be even better. Our burns would return to approximately 250-300M per day. It would be even more funding for CP.
Yes we have a means to fund the OP, hence my proposal. Increase funding to CP, have a suitable CAP, overflow funds to OP. My proposal states we need to stop the decline in the OP as much as possible as staking is a big draw for new money to the chain, and increased transactions occur when they pull rewards daily.
I agree we need good funding, which is why my proposal talks about increasing CP funding through another funding source (10% of the burn tax with new anthandler code).
L1 is doing what they need to do. They will require another 900M LUNC (or less as price has risen) at their end of their 3 months. They are doing good work.
I have read all your comments but It’s like you aren’t understanding my proposal and I keep addressing your concerns but you keep repeating the same thing. Nevertheless I hope some people noticed what I have proposed. L1 is going with the 50/50 split of the burn tax. If we can get that changed to a 90/10 and increase the burn tax, stop tax on dapps, and assess gas fees, we will be close to fulfilling my vision proposal here.
The last thing that will help fund the OP is a CAP on the CP which I believe is a good idea. We will see how things go and if good changes can occur piece by piece. I’ve laid out my vision for LUNC which is strong burns, good CP funding, capped CP, replenishing OP, increasing gas to suitable level (5x may be fine, but if not raise more). Your welcome to your own view, but I have responded to you this many times and believe I’ve about said enough. I will earnestly watch LUNC’s development and hope for good governance supported by the community.
Utility definition by Webster: : the quality or state of being useful : usefulness. : something useful or designed for use.**
Utility wise we have gotten L2 dapps, we have gotten IBC-s open with LUNA parity proposal up right now.
Utility wise we need to get UST repegged.
How do you think any of this will happen, if your vision only sees handouts and taxation as the means to reaching any meaningful state?
You keep going in circles with your CAP and increased burn tax, but you completely ignore what utility it brings.
You only talk of possible hype and fomo and marketing, but what you market has no inherent value if not done en masse.
To do it en masse you need to have actual attractions, dapps, stable or any other sort of meaningfulreason for investors to buy it and trade it. Organically burning. Doing it through their everyday need. Not manually burning or being forced to pay higher and higher taxes, just so the token without any merit could stay alive a day longer.
You don’t promote anything with the burning, besides the meme coin advertisement. This is why I don’t see this vision accounting for any sort of future, but trying to defend a sentimentality that has ran it’s course.
Get funds. Get developers. Get utility. Incorporate burns into the utility in a thought out manner that benefits everyone. Not just a certain mentality.
Repegging USTC is one of the most vital parts of this Classic chain.That will burn the amounts we have burned so far, in a day if not more.
Yet you can’t do it by burning the only assets we have.
The tax/gas fees don’t need to hurt the dapps as we have just seen the proposal put forward to exempt them partially from tax which I support. There are no substantial dapps that have come about right now, there was a Casino but I don’t know of much more. Yes I support parity with LUNA but there is more L1 work ahead for that. What “handouts” are you referring to? I’m talking about funding the chain. Funding burns, funding community pool and funding oracle pool. You distain burns and the burn movement and prefer to wait an unknown time for a USTC repeg and yet-to-be created dapps to burn the supply. You know that USTC re-peg is an uncertain concept? We don’t even have a solid pitch for that yet, with pending US legislation against algorithmic stablecoins. You are pinning your hopes for LUNC on USTC and dapps. I don’t agree with that approach. Burns are not trivial, and if they weren’t nerfed by losing 1.2% and the minting fiasco, we could have done better. The burn movement secured Binance’s support which you FAIL to mention. Your clearly only interested in mystery unknown dapps. I get it. You hate burns and the burn movement and you think it’s a joke. You also don’t care for staking or funding the oracle pool. Well I’m glad to disagree with you, and I hope the community doesn’t go your way.
