I mentioned earlier in the thread this was to “code” the change. I also detailed the list of proposed governance changes earlier which showed coding the 90/10 split by text proposal. If I was proposing to mint again by seniorage this would not require a text proposal. Furthermore you are incorrect, the work on the burn anthandler is under progress by the L1 team right now, and has not been given up on. Did you see the L1 sprint details on Twitter?
L1 Task Force. Bi-Weekly Status Update | by LuncBurnArmy | Jan, 2023 | Medium.
Check these threads the bottom posts. Amendment to the "Refactor Burn AnteHandler and deprecate Seigniorage Reward Policy" Proposal - #15 by rahul_kumar and Refactor Burn AnteHandler and deprecate Seigniorage Reward Policy - #248 by Mpowski.
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.