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.
Raise the on-chain tax to 1.5%. This is one parameter proposal.
Adjust the tax split to 80/20% which gives 1.2% burns and 0.3% to the community pool. This is one parameter proposal.
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.
Push for the 1.2% off-chain burn tax adoption by Binance, Kucoin and other major exchanges by persistent community efforts.
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.
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.
JESUSisLORD LUNC Validator.