Vision Plan to achieve $1+ LUNC

Governance & Proposals
22

You are wrong, but I’ve already addressed your points so I won’t pointlessly repeat myself.

I’ve only put up one proposal for vote which was the 75/25% tax split prop #11394 to help fund the chain. Your saying that didn’t even make sense so they wouldn’t cast a vote? Are you trying to conflate this with my tax increase suggestions?

Adjusting from 90/10% to 75/25% is actually a 16% decrease in burns for 2.5x more on-chain funding. This did not pass or make quorum. Many didn’t even vote after repeated reminders, which I won’t forget.

23

Totally agree with this.

2 Likes
24

Sorry, it came out wrong, i didnt mean toward your proposal for the 75/25, i personally thought that was a good proposal , i was talking about all the burn proposals which are pretty much daily now.

I also think that all proposal should be voted, even scams.

25

you are mistaken that the current tax change will not reduce volume and usage in the worst case. It is a common mistake in economics. a flawed point of view it is too early for such actions now. give up.

we need to revive the chain, promote utility apps, increase volume, act with our supporters, and most importantly, survive. perhaps we can assume that you do not think much about these concepts. I’m starting to believe you’re trying to hurt us. I hope people will lessen their support for you over time.

3 Likes
26

I’m trying to bring back what we should have done which was stay committed to the 1.2% burn tax and achieve off-chain adoption in line with proposal #4793. I voted against the 1.2% burn tax being removed before I was a validator and believed then and still do, that it was a big mistake. Minting also came from the 1.2% being removed which people forget.

Screenshot_20230310-120607_Telegram
Screenshot_20230310-120607_Telegram720×645 104 KB

My reasoning is all explained in the original post, I’m not going to repeat myself fruitlessly. Why don’t you ask the people trying to delete the burn tax whether they are trying to hurt us, so we lose Binance? Why would they burn for us if we can’t even bother to burn for ourselves on-chain?

If I am offensive to the anti-burn tax crowd I am not concerned. I will continue to advocate for my proposal for the betterment of LUNC and its investors.

1 Like
27

The imposition of a tax shows potential investors that the community is working on a project. Taking steps towards reducing the money supply. That is, progress is possible. This stimulates interest, the desire to buy while it’s cheap. People are trying to monitor the situation. Many people are disappointed

28

Why don’t you go and try to attract developers to the chain, for example, you can try to convince them that we’re going to raise taxes and that’s why they should work with us. You may have made a useful attempt instead of your futile effort.

It is clear that there is something we cannot agree on with you. What I don’t understand is you think the chain and our technology are just buying and selling things? Even with Dapp services, it may be necessary to pay more than one tax for very simple transactions. I think you insist on not understanding how the chain is supposed to work. You’re trying to get the developers off the chain, sorry you can’t make us believe this is helpful.

29

See point 3 of the proposal, dapps are incentivised by being tax exempt.

Did you read #3 of my proposal or skip that part?

You and your anti-burn tax friends don’t represent the whole community.

30

NO WITH VETO

Give it up already, have you not learned anything from the past 3 tax props??

Obviously not, yet you STILL go against the whole community.

Stop wasting peoples time

5 Likes
31

Absolute No with a VETO. Increasing does not work you either are ignorant or just not willing to understand. Tax proposals will fail.

5 Likes
32

I think you will find from the voting statistics from individual votes (not validator votes) that the community showed you what they wanted for any tax proposal, by voting no and no with veto!

So you are saying you and your cult following are against the majority of the community?

If thats true and to be honest you keep doing these tax props you are showing that you do not care what the community wants, and also have zero respect for governance and the luna classic community as a whole!

Listen to the people and not your deluded dreams and fantasies, this is a business… not a game you can play with your deluded fantasies.

People’s money is at risk here and you are being foolish with it! You are so disrespectful to lunc traders its unreal!

By the way, we are NOT anti burn! We are ANTI TAX increase!

BIG DIFFERENCE, you need to be educated as your blatent obsession with constantly raising the tax is concerning on a $1Billion blockchain!

8 Likes
33

@dfunk 's suggestion is valid and healthy. your suggestions distract or complicate matters. This is my opinion of course.
Can you answer the following questions?

  1. How can we build a strong chain with high tax?
  2. How can we continue to support exchanges like our backer binance?
  3. What do we practically lose at the thought of pushing the stock market?
  4. We want to be listed on other exchanges, how are you going to do this when you think we are pushing the exchanges?
  5. How can you take responsibility if all your suggestions turn out to be bad?
  6. Do you accept a legal obligation to defend your claims? What is your solution if everything goes wrong?
  7. Can you understand the sensitivity of the society?
  8. All you want to do is make sure the group you represent is happy? Don’t you care about the opinions of the remaining 98% of the community? Society is worried.
2 Likes
34

  1. Utility on-chain is tax exempt so they are incentivised. The alternative is asking them to come on-chain but somehow apply their own taxes to burn our supply? Unnecessary, they can be exempt.

  2. Binance reduced their burns due to minting. Binance once had 1.2% on-chain. Raising our on-chain tax does not harm Binance as their internal wallets are whitelisted because they burn for us. We want to get Kucoin and others to burn for us like Binance. We also want Binance to burn more. If we go back to 1.2% burn tax we can ask them. We have wallet whitelisting as an option now which is like a new arrow in our quiver, we didn’t have that before when pushing for exchange adoption.

  3. In my plan the normal person (utility excluded) pays 1.5% tax whenever they move their coins. Most people stake who aren’t holding on exchanges. I was there when the 1.2% was active on-chain. It was not burdensome. We won’t scare people away. It will impress people we are getting serious about burning again, and builders are incentivised on chain due to tax exemption.

  4. Pushing for exchange adoption is the core of the communities work in this plan. I want to see what we had going in the early days, where we were united asking the exchanges to burn off-chain for us, but unfortunately on poor advice, the community dropped the 1.2% burn tax after 3 weeks, killing our attempts to convince exchanges. If we raise our tax to 1.5%, the exchanges who do not comply with us will be taxed more on their internal wallet transfers. So they are incentivised to get whitelisted and comply with our burn requests. They will have to comply voluntarily. But we should apply steady pressure as a community over a prolonged period, and I believe the plan will succeed in short order.

  5. If after 6 months of implementing the tax changes, and asking exchanges to burn off-chain for us, being united behind this plan and if it fails to work after that time, and we haven’t achieved new significant off-chain burns, I will accept responsibility for it not working. I will accept a reversal of the plan at that point.

  6. The obligation is in the community if they approve this plan by governance. If your parliament in your country passes a vote, do you sue the proposer of the bill if something goes wrong? No, it took the whole parliament to pass the vote, so all are responsible. As we have a type of decentralised democracy, the similar understanding should be applied. Otherwise do you want to sue Akujiro and Duncan for putting up the 0.2% tax with 10% mint for lost burns and not meeting the claims of the proposal? or CosmosCapybara for proposing the 50% mint which the community passed which led to 50% loss of Binance burns? To sue them for all our lost burns? Or what if Zaradar’s desire to remove the burn tax does not work and we lose Binance? Are you wanting to sue him in that event for lost burns and partnership? If something gets passed by the community the responsibility shifts onto the community for voting in the proposal. I hope you understand this. But I will take personal responsibility for my proposal to achieve it, and request full compliance and unity for 6 months. If it doesn’t work by then for new off-chain burns and the exchanges refuse, then we can change course to whatever the community decides. I believe my plan will work.

  7. I understand many people have given up on the burn tax and want to focus on what they think will help the chain, utility and USTC re-peg. I believe these are not the answer to burn our supply and pump LUNC’s price. Burning of USTC is the answer, if Binance burns USTC fees off-chain for us (I’ve tried to ask them by competitions on Twitter), because of its low supply it can burn up in a few years much faster than LUNC, no legally risky possibly chain fatal experiment needed for $1+. The burn tax has only been changed once overall from 1.2% to 0.2%. That’s it. My proposal is to go back to the 1.2% burn tax, and add 0.3% to fund the chain for a 1.5% total transaction tax. This is not unreasonable. I understand the sensitivity in a big part of the community due to the tax, but as I said at the end of my proposal, I am patient with my plan and the community can come around once they do not see dapps burning our supply for us, and USTC re-peg if at all being a long way off. L1 won’t touch it until they get full time legal advice, which we can’t afford as people refuse to raise the tax and voted down or didn’t vote at all (didn’t make quorum) my 75/25% funding prop #11394, for example. We’re in a conundrum. What people want they refuse to make the changes to even make it possible. There is a lot of irrationality in the Twitter LUNC community.

  8. In a democracy, political parties have a duty to represent their constituents. I also have a duty to represent and advance the cause of my delegates. Many in the community were upset when the 1.2% was removed, including myself. I represent them, and those who want off-chain burns. I will continue to advocate for them and my plan, which I believe will be successful and is achievable. When something doesn’t go my way, and the community votes otherwise I respect their vote, which is why I adjusted to 5% commission from 1% when prop #11322 passed, even though I voted NO for it. Many other validators make excuses and still sit at 0% commission disrespecting the communities vote. You can go ask them about respecting the community. There is no rule about not making new proposals. If a proposal is rejected, it’s not wrong to plan to make a new one in the future if conditions and sentiment have changed. I am not yet putting these proposals up for vote, as I already mentioned in the first post. It’s not time yet. But I wanted to make the discussion thread to show my vision plan to the community, so they may consider it in time if they would reconsider and approve it at a later stage. Regards, Christopher.

2 Likes
35

Binance never adopted the 1.2% tax…

3 Likes
36

It’s been almost a year and we’re still discussing the issue of the burning tax ratio. What a garbage post! Setting a 95% tax would only make the burning faster. Haven’t you realized that the real problem is that no one is using the chain? Why not think about how to attract users to the chain? Currently, almost 95% of the transaction volume on the chain comes from exchanges’ recharge, withdrawal, or internal wallet management. The exchanges are already tired of constantly adjusting the tax rate. The exchanges could simply remove these trading pairs from trading to make everyone happy.

4 Likes
37

They did the 1.2% on-chain. Did you forget?

Screenshot_20230311-004609_Chrome
Screenshot_20230311-004609_Chrome720×928 84.6 KB

1 Like
38

I fully support this, the plan outlines a clear strategy to raise the on-chain tax, exempt dapps, and pursue off-chain burns through persistent community efforts. By implementing a 1.5% on-chain transaction tax with, 1.2% burns, and 0.3% (80/20 split) to the community pool, we can achieve significant off-chain burns and significantly raise the price of LUNC.

The plan to exempt dapps from the on-chain tax is a clever move to incentivize them to bring utility to the chain, without forcing them to burn for us. The plan to push for off-chain burn tax adoption by major exchanges is a crucial step to reducing the LUNC supply and raising the price.

I 100% agree that the current approach of a 0.2% tax is not working, and we need to go back and fully explore passed proposal #4793. With a 1.5% tax and an 80/20% split, we can expect to burn a far greater substantial amount.

I believe that the Vision Plan proposed to achieve $1+ LUNC is a well-thought-out strategy that can significantly reduce the LUNC supply, raise the price, and incentivize long-term holding with a deflationary coin. I fully support this plan!!

It is also important to note that the initial 1.2% tax was only in effect for about two weeks before rumours began to circulate about how it was negatively impacting the chain. As a result, we decided to lower the tax to 0.2%, which caused a decrease in volume. In addition, there was a proposal to mint tokens, which turned out to be a terrible mistake. As a consequence, Binance also reduced their burns.

Both sides can benefit from this approach, as we can raise taxes while also providing exemptions for dapps. Additionally, why is there a persistent assumption that utilities will materialize? Despite the significant reduction in the burn tax, we still have not seen any promised utilities.

How can we claim that the tax is inconsequential, when it’s been shown to raise prices? The reduction in supply has been proven to drive up prices, as demonstrated by the price fluctuations that occurred before the tax decrease.

Despite Luna 2.0 being a non-performing asset that has not shown signs of recovery, there are still some individuals who advocate for its integration and exploration within their functionalities.

Implementing taxes on cryptocurrency transactions can have several benefits for the sustainability, stability, and mainstream adoption of the cryptocurrency.

3 Likes
39

Binance cannot “do the 1.2% on-chain” and supporting a network upgrade has literally nothing to do with what you’re claiming aka implementing 1.2% off-chain tax on trading, do you even understand how the tech works being a validator? Recommend you put the bible aside for an hour a day and read the terra classic documentation smh

3 Likes
40

After considering again CZ’s words in the September 23 AMA, he didn’t think 1.2% burn tax off-chain could help unless the other exchanges agreed to do it simultaneously, otherwise he thought Binance would have zero volume and he was concerned by this. This was good feedback from CZ with respect to the implementation of the 1.2% off-chain burn tax.

These are top 20 exchanges that trade LUNC with high confidence on CoinMarketCap:

  1. Binance 44.31%
  2. BTC Turk 8.17%
  3. Bitforex 5.24%
  4. Kucoin 4.66%
  5. Deepcoin 3.63%
  6. OKX 3.00%
  7. Gate io 2.82%
  8. Bitget 1.87%
  9. Bitkub 1.75%
  10. Bitvavo 1.18%
  11. MEXC 1.09%
  12. Bitcex 0.97%
  13. DigiFinex 0.78%
  14. Bybit 0.51%
  15. Kraken 0.41%
  16. Phemex 0.32%
  17. Lbank 0.14%
  18. Huobi 0.13%
  19. Bitmart 0.12%

I haven’t heard of some of these, and I do not know how reliable the volumes are, or of a more accurate exchange volume list for LUNC. But this is an example of a final list to be made at a later stage.

At that time our on-chain tax would have already been adjusted to 1.5% with 1.2% burn and 0.3% community pool. The exchanges should be aware already of the change which affects their customers deposits and withdrawals with a 1.5% tax, and their internal wallets for LUNC are also subject to 1.5% tax (aside from Binance).

Then we can have the L1 Team contact each exchange, and ask them if they would be interested in applying the 1.2% burn tax on buy/sells and we will whitelist their internal wallets from the on-chain tax. Instead of 1.5% on internal transfers they pay 0%. After informing them generally about the wallet whitelist, the L1 Team should ask the exchange this specific question, and record the answer on a list:

“Would your exchange agree to apply the LUNC 1.2% burn tax for buy/sells if other exchanges also agree to do the same?”

The list of who agreed is kept private by the L1 Team until we can reach consensus between exchanges. If we can get enough to agree, then this could reassure the big ones like Binance and Kucoin that enough will support they won’t lose volumes to other exchanges, and the exchages could simultaneously launch the 1.2% burn tax off-chain.

Once we get several of the big exchanges launching, it will be the breakthrough we are after. Intense focus will be on LUNC, other investors will come in, volumes will rise and daily burns will be huge, bringing more hype and interest, and catapault the price higher. We don’t stop but keep pushing for near unanimous support for the 1.2% burn tax off-chain for exchanges with community effort and do not give up and give this overall effort at least 6 months hard work. If we get good breakthrough then there is no reason to stop, but keep pursuing the path to $1+.

I believe this is achievable, and is our path for LUNC to $1+ with massive off-chain burns. I will wait patiently until there is sufficient community interest in this plan before putting any proposal for vote. If you have any more good ideas how we can get off-chain adoption please share here.

With the communitt united and our L1 Team and the wallet whitelist and my Vision Plan, we can achieve significant off-chain burns and make LUNC to go $1+ to benefit all its investors.

Your blinded by so much hatred for me you can’t even see straight. I said “Binance did do the 1.2% on-chain” and showed the photo. This is correct. When you sent LUNC to Binance or withdrew you were charged the 1.2%. They supported our change in tax, and they would support it again if we raised to 1.5%.

@wagnerdalcin said Binance never adopted the 1.2%. I assumed he was talking about on-chain as I never claimed they adopted the 1.2% off-chain. The whole point of the proposal is to achieve 1.2% burn tax off-chain. Every chance you get you and your friends attack me for my religion. Thankfully I know the living Almighty God, Jesus Christ, and He knows me.

41

You just can’t enforce governance decision off-chain.

After all this rant (and the Twitter rant) I’m starting to wonder (just like others) if you even know what’s is the purpose of validators. It seems like you don’t …

4 Likes