Vision Plan to achieve $1+ LUNC

Vision Plan to achieve $1+ LUNC


I believe in this plan to raise the on-chain tax, exempt dapps, and pursue by community efforts to achieve significant off-chain burns to reduce the LUNC supply and greatly raise the price.


  1. Raise the on-chain tax to 1.5%. This is one parameter proposal.

  2. Adjust the tax split to 80/20% which gives 1.2% burns and 0.3% to the community pool. This is one parameter proposal.

  3. Exempt dapps from the on-chain tax according to dfunk’s proposal here [Proposal] Exclude Smart Contraction Transactions from the scope of Burn Tax or whitelist them. They can focus on bringing utility for the chain, we don’t need to force them to burn for us, so they are tax exempt as it’s our way to incentivise them on-chain.

  4. Push for the 1.2% off-chain burn tax adoption by Binance, Kucoin and other major exchanges by persistent community efforts.

  5. At the same time the L1 Team will reach out to major exchanges offering for them to adopt the 1.2% burn tax off-chain on buy and sells, and offer the wallet whitelist from the on-chain tax for their internal wallets, and answer any technical questions they may have.

  6. Continue to push for significant off-chain burn tax adoption for LUNC. Keep persistent and give the effort at least 6 months of persistent hard work and community effort, and stay united during this time without giving up.

That’s it. That’s my vision plan for LUNC to $1+. I believe in this plan and believe it’s achievable and will work if we commit to it.


The community gave the 1.2% burn tax 3 weeks. The momentum was lost by the introduction of the 0.2% tax and 10% mint. The community should have persisted with the 1.2% tax and off-chain adoption. CZ Binance said in an AMA he would adopt the 1.2% tax off-chain if other exchanges do, so that people wouldn’t leave Binance to trade on cheaper exchanges.

This was a positive statement the community didn’t pursue. He is currently burning half (due to minting) his fees for us now off-chain. If we can get the big exchanges to agree to 1.2% off-chain, possibly doing it simultaneously after outreach from the community and L1 Team, we could achieve this.

My plan is a revival of proposal #4793 which achieved unanimous validator support and 99.3% YES vote. This is the essence of my plan, that our current approach is not working, and we need to go back and fully explore passed proposal #4793.

1.5% on-chain transaction tax is not unreasonable. With an 80/20% split of the tax, 0.3% is for the community pool for development and funding needs for the chain. 1.2% remains for burning, which is the same as the original 1.2% burn tax.

We must burn on-chain to push for off-chain burns from exchanges. They won’t burn for us unless we show we are committed to burning for ourselves. We have to show our resolve. CZ said so himself here we must have the same on-chain to ask for off-chain.

A 1.5% tax is split with a 1.2% burn tax and 0.3% CP tax (80/20%), and at current volumes we could expect to burn approximately around 240M LUNC per day, with 60M per day to the community pool. This is 7.2B LUNC burned per month and 1.8B per month in the community pool. This is great burns and an excellent chain funding rate.

Once our community pool is filled with a good level of funding, we can CAP it and overflow 100% to the oracle rewards pool (another proposal I have discussed before) to ensure good staking rewards for the long term, incentivising long term holding with our deflationary coin.

On 0.2% tax we are currently burning on average only around 36M per day and bringing in 4M per day for the community pool. If we adopt my plan our burns will approximately 6x and our CP funding from the tax will 15x. We were regularly burning over 200M LUNC per day when we used to have the 1.2% tax.

While burning 240M LUNC or so per day is good burns, it is overall still about 78 years to burn the supply. This is why off-chain adoption of the burn tax is the centerpiece of this proposal. But burning 1.2% on-chain is the necessary foundation to achieve it.

So far no major utilities have come on the chain after months of 0.2% tax, nor did major volumes come to burn more than with 1.2%, which was claimed by its proponents at the time, so the 0.2% did not achieve what was claimed.

People are hoping for dapps from LUNA V2 to come to LUNC, but no one knows what, if any, would come, or how much, if at all, they would burn our supply.

Instead of pinning hopes on uncertain utility to burn our chain, we can raise our tax and burn over 200M LUNC each day.

As is proposed, we should implement the proposal by dfunk linked earlier, to exempt or whitelist dapps on-chain from the on-chain tax. This way utility is tax exempted so is not harmed, and is incentivised to come on-chain.

If we had zero burn tax like some advocate for, dapps would have to charge their own tax if we wanted to burn our supply. They would have to agree to this, and this would harm their profits. Rather, let us keep a good 200M+ on-chain burn per day and whitelist or exempt the apps. They bring utility. We don’t need them for burns unless they volunteer, but they should be exempted from on-chain tax. Their utility will naturally increase LUNC on-chain volumes and adoption by making LUNC more attractive to use.

While some advocate zero burn tax and utility after chain parity with LUNA V2 to burn the supply. So far there are not sufficient explanations about utilities, the specifics, and how they would actually burn to reduce our inflated supply, and that path will not bring $1+, as I already explained.

Let us instead focus on raising our on-chain tax, exempting dapps from on-chain tax, and pushing for off-chain tax adoption.

I believe we should pursue this plan, with the centrepiece to achieve off-chain burns for LUNC to $1+, and this is from my validator roadmap.

I am patient about this, and I don’t expect the community to agree to this immediately. Maybe once the community realises dapps will not burn the supply for us, they will seriously consider this proposal.

This is my plan I’m putting forward for what I believe is good for LUNC, and I want to share it, and I will continue to push for its approval over time.

Thank you for reading.

These proposals will not be put up for vote now, but are open for discussion.

Regards, Christopher Harris.


will never happen


I support all these proposals.


I support these proposals.


No with Veto, tax manipulation needs to stop, its not the saviour without utility, and there has been nothing for utility bring some utility props…


No! You keep pushing your “vision” on us, and still you don’t realize how harmful it is.


‘No with Veto’
I always vote “nowithveto” for the garbage proposal!


People who vote against taxes. do you have some kind of argument? Are you aware that you are drowning the project? Or is your task to eliminate terra? Supporters of the tax have arguments. And you?


Your comment makes no sense, I suggest you re-read what you send… Adjusting the tax does nothing apart from scare away investors, are you aware of that?, every month there is another prop to re-issue a tax that doesn’t work, get the utility on the god dam chain… without utility a tax of any value doesnt do SHIT!!!


Well said and yes on all. I support this wholeheartedly.


Investors want the asset to grow. The growth of the asset at this stage can only be provided by deflation. How can you not understand basic things.


Moonboy fail to understand that lower supply do not equal higher price

1 Like

CZ also says:

Matthew Perry is making a spreadsheets and looking for contacts on exchanges to get their point of view and try to get a way to implement the burn off chain. Even if those proposal keep popping up weekly it will always be a no because they are pretty much meaningless.


A decrease in supply increases demand. And the price


not really

No, this proposal is not meaningless but is the true path to $1. CZ is hesitant, did you expect him to just agree right away without effort? The community gave up after 3 weeks of the 1.2% tax. CZ already admitted he would do the 1.2% off-chain if other exchanges agreed also. Whales will be forced to participate if we get the major exchanges to adopt the 1.2% off-chain burn tax if they want to partake of LUNC’s awesome price action.

Mass burning will reduce the supply, increase demand, bring massive hype of possible recovery to ATH, and we will skyrocket, increasing volumes and bringing even more burns. I will continue to advocate for my vision plan, which is good for LUNC and its investors.


What is the reason for whales to pay that 1.2% fee? Its like asking a investor to invest in a bankrupt company and automatically lose 2.4% by just buying the position. Currently the only reason for investing in LUNC is a gamble and hope that the chain would be fixed and it will have some actual value in time and trust me even big whales do not gamble that much.

Also to the other comment “A decrease in supply increases demand. And the price” , you should google demand , that’s not how demand works.

LUNC was a 60b chain because it had a use case and provided something unique for the Cosmos, chances are another chain creates their own stablecoin before we manage to repeg or fix the chain and then lunc will most likely be done, so instead of going back and forward with useless burn taxes you should focus on building.

Trust me, i am comfortable with my position and if you make the burn tax 50% i wouldn’t care, i have no reason to move my coins any time soon and wouldn’t mind waiting for other people to burn their own money so my bag would grow but that’s how pyramidschemes work not investments.

Also keep in mind that a lot of people already have 10000% return on their investment , now all they do is sit on the position and sell the staking rewards. All i hear is burning ,burning , mass burning, you do know that burning means burning actual money right?

The only way there would be any change in the tax whatsoever is if the L1 team initiates it and they might soon have to do it for funding reasons.

My 2 cents. Good luck with the prop!


That “only” you used make the sentence completely wrong.

1 Like

If we get 1.2% burns off-chain with the likes of Binance and Kucoin, there is no gamble, LUNC will have massive burns and many will buy in. The hype of recovery will come back like a flood. Yes they will get used to 1.2% buy and 1.2% sell, they won’t care.

We don’t need USTC re-peg for LUNC’s recovery, it’s legally risky and could lead to another death spiral type issue.

LUNC has around 22% PA staking rewards and is deflationary which is excellent. Many were attracted to LUNA for 20% anchor returns but ours are even better. We need to fund the oracle staking rewards pool to ensure rewards stay good. People will use LUNC because of good staking rewards and it’s deflationary being a store of value and investment. You can’t stake Bitcoin for 22% PA and Bitcoin is not deflationary, but many buy and hold it.

We have a hyperinflated supply and wise use of on-chain tax to burn and fund the chain, and off-chain burns is nothing like a pyramid scheme. It’s a reasonable transaction tax for all who use and buy and sell LUNC to contribute to reducing the supply and ultimately raising the price.

I will continue to pursue this plan and you do not know what will happen.


“If we get 1.2% burns off-chain with the likes of Binance and Kucoin”

If we get Elon Musk to buy all the supply it will go to 1$ instantly.

“LUNC has around 22% PA staking rewards and is deflationary which is excellent”.

The only reason lunc has 22% staking rewards is because thats the money people lost during the death spiral , it was the side effect of it. Those rewards will be gone in a year or so and there is no way you can sustain it.

“It’s a reasonable transaction tax for all who use and buy and sell LUNC to contribute to reducing the supply and ultimately raising the price.”

So you are telling me that the only reason to invest here is so i can reduce the supply and rise the price? Sounds like a pyramid to me. You need to give people an actual reason to use Lunc, in game purchase, exchange discounts for holders and so on for example.

There is a reason bitcoin is the #1 crypto and its valued at $500b, it doesent have a deflationary supply but it has a fixed supply and rising demand.

When you put up proposals you should also take into account other people’s perspectives and consider that you might not be 100% correct. The reason most of the validators didnt even vote is not because they didn’t see the proposal, its because it doesn’t even make sense. The chain upgrade proposal passed within the first couple of hours. Its a good thing that you have a goal and continue to persuade it but you should adjusting something or changing the approach in order to make it thru.

Keep in mind that there is a big part of the community that consist of “moonboys” that have $100 invested and are just waiting to become millionaires. You will not see the “whales” who have millions invested bother debating burn taxes.