Did you read the proposal? The main part is by using community efforts and the wallet whitelisting to try to push for off-chain burn tax adoption by exchanges. I know very well we can’t make them do it by a governance proposal. That was obvious by the original post. Your speaking nonsense, and an off-topic personal attack against me, which is typical.
1 Like
Also, if the exchanges agree to do 1.2% off-chain burn tax for us, we could even whitelist their hot wallets so that users who deposit and withdraw to that exchange do not pay tax. Right now Binance’s internal wallets are listed on our whitelist, so their internal transfers are not taxed. But Binance users sending to Binance and withdrawing are still taxed on-chain.
We can say we will whitelist your LUNC deposit/withdrawal hot wallets also to make it so users sending too and from exchanges can be tax exempt, incentivising users onto your exchange to compensate for any volume loss they feel they may have from adopting the 1.2% off-chain burn tax.
While we would lose some on-chain burns, if we can have an extra bargaining option on our side to achieve off-chain burns, where the volume is, that is good. I don’t see a problem with doing this as it’s an even greater incentive.
1 Like
I’ve read all your proposals and they are all based on profecies and the benevolence of CEX.
As I have argued, you don’t have the smallest idea what it means validating a blockchain and you are just trying to push the “burn tax raise” narrative against governance votes. It seem you only wanna engagement to your validator ant personal pages.
3 Likes
They are based on prophecies that’s true. Prophetic dreams I’ve had that Binance will adopt the 1.2% burn tax off-chain, Kucoin the same, and a prophetic dream about implementing a 1.5% on-chain tax. These are great prophecies the Lord gave me and I am working towards them and believe they will work, even aside from the prophecies. Also the proposals are based on all I’ve seen and learned since May 13 when I first invested in LUNC.
It’s not just the benevolence of exchanges, if our on-chain tax is 1.5% exchanges internal wallets will be penalised in a way, because if they make internal movements they are losing 1.5% each time. That’s where we offer the wallet whitelist to make their wallets tax free. We actually have leverage with increasing the tax to 1.5%, and incentive by something to offer (wallet whitelist). We could even whitelist their hot wallet for receiving deposits, so those who send to the exchange is a tax free transfer. These are good bargaining options we have at our disposal. It’s not purely their benevolence.
Plus in my plan the L1 Team will be reaching out, and the community will work hard to ask and pressure exchanges to agree. It’s like you don’t really read my posts you just take your opportunity to make unjustified personal attacks against me. I fully believe in this plan for LUNC to $1, and will wait patiently for the right conditions to appear before proceeding to vote. This proposal is from my validator roadmap and a development from my first vision plan, all posted here. I have made numerous proposals for what I believe is good for LUNC. All you can do is unfairly attack me, not even offer any constructive discussion. But you won’t stop me and I will continue to do as the Lord leads me.
-
Why would any exchange agree to a 1.5% burn tax on off-chain transactions? What is in it for them?
-
Why would I want to pay a tax of 1.5% on LUNC transactions plus gas when there are a multitude of substitute coins and dApps that don’t have a tax or if they do it is not noticeable?
-
.2% or 1.2% or 1.5% tax doesn’t make a difference unless we have consistent growth in transaction volumes. See #2 above.
-
A democratic vote was held which reduced the tax and another democratic vote to increase the tax just failed. Democracy is working.
4 Likes
because they want to create a meaningless mess. Because of the long and meaningless answers to the questions I asked, I think his intentions were not good. hard to argue, all he does is give long answers and harass the public 
You’re drawing a vision, there’s a lot of junk that can’t be filled. You say you believe, you hesitate to take responsibility. The chain is worth a trillion and you want to use it for your own pointless experiments. I’m having a hard time understanding how this validator is authorized.
4 Likes
-
1.2% off-chain burn tax not 1.5%. 1.5% is the total on-chain tax. Your question has been answered repeatedly including here Vision Plan to achieve $1+ LUNC - #45 by JESUSisLORD
-
To burn our supply, to have 200M per day burns and pursue off-chain burn tax adoption which is the path to $1+. Try reading the proposal next time.
-
200+M burned per day is better than 30-40M per day and we can pursue off-chain burns.
-
If you live in a democracy you know that topics are brought up over and over again even if they don’t pass the first time, which is normal. You are again ignoring my original post where I said I won’t be proceeding to vote now and this is for later.
You ask me a series of questions and when I answer you this is what you say? You are a very disrespectful man with ill intentions. You did not address anything I said, but just attack me personally. That is very evil behaviour. More of the same from the similar factions within the LUNC community. But you won’t deter me from continuing to pursue my plan.
My English is not very good. I’m sure I didn’t say an insult or a bad word. I have stated my own views. I think he gave a series of meaningless and long answers to the questions I asked. You have shared a complex set of proposals and thoughts. I think that there is a lack of knowledge and insufficient training on the subject. That’s why you want to try something, we don’t invest in a field where you can experiment. I suggest you go and socialize a bit.
1 Like
You did attack me and dismissed all my answers to your questions without addressing their merits. The proposal is not complex there are 6 points which are all easy to understand. Then you accuse me of wanting to make a meaningless mess, harass the public, questioning why I can be a validator, and accusing my plan of risking the chain itself. Then you pretend you did nothing? You’re not fooling me.
Your comments were completely full of insults and attacks and not addressing my actual proposal. Another bad actor within the LUNC community who demands personal accountability from everyone but himself. I understood your english very well, your intentions were clear to attack and malign my character and intentions. Just one among many within this community who resort to personal attacks instead of discussing the merits of a proposal. I will continue to pursue my proposal as the Lord leads me.
you are really a little boy or a little man. You can understand how you want to understand. I believe it is a pointless and unnecessary proposition. We are not your test board, we are the investors who put money into this chain. I invested 15k ABD dollars in the chain. I vehemently reject your risky and complex rhetoric because it sounds absurd and complex. As you do not understand the economy, you open unnecessary discussion topics because you are far from the developments that will benefit the chain. Your Lord has given you a mind, but your ability to interpret is obviously lacking.
I don’t see you as small enough to care, and I don’t see you as valuable enough to attack you. Let’s put this proposal to the vote and the community will give you the best answer.
3 Likes
I don’t think intranet commissions will be able to cut the offer. Not those volumes. We need to face the truth.
But if we could introduce a sales tax outside the network, this would solve the problem. It’s in theory. In practice, it is unrealistic to interest the exchanges. It is profitable for them, but they will be afraid. Regulators may suspect manipulation. IMHO
I am a man of God who does the Lord’s will. You are not. You love to personally attack me then pretend you aren’t attacking me. Typical demonic behaviour. You’re one of the worst ones I’ve encountered, more than the other ones, who at least don’t lie and deny their attacks right after they do them (gaslighting). Thankfully the Lord Jesus Christ strengthens me. If you read the proposal I said this is not going up for vote at this time because the conditions are not right.
I disagree, my proposal is good and is not complex. It has 6 easy steps which are all easy to understand with the goal of achieving off-chain burns. This is the idea from proposal #4793 to achieve the 1.2% tax off-chain which everyone unanimously agreed to at the time, so how is my proposal some risky experiment? It’s not. The community did not explore the 1.2% properly and gave up after 3 weeks. If 6 months pass after making the tax changes and we didn’t achieve significant off-chain burns, then the tax can simply be changed back to 0.2% to put us back in the same position. In my proposal utility is exempt from tax so this will not stop building.
Good for you about your investment, I’m invested in LUNC since May 13 and continually when I could since then and it is my focus. I will continue to push for my vision plan for LUNC to $1+, which I believe is good for LUNC and much better than the current path.
1 Like
I hope you realize your proposal is not good:
- You propose a higher tax on-chain than off-chain - a great way of driving people off the chain
- Your propose lies on the benevolence of CEX adopting the tax - why would they, anyway?!?
- Your proposal doesn’t mention what endeavors you would take to achieve your vision - instead, you wanna call the L1TF for the job
- Your proposal doesn’t innovate the chain just try to stick to the sustain the “burn” movement a little longer
Hope you doesn’t take it personal, cause it isn’t. It is strictly business.
3 Likes
-
No, dapps are exempted from on-chain tax they will not be scared away. Builders are tax free.
-
What I said was not lies, I stated a true report of what CZ said on his September 23 AMA which was that the 1.2% wouldn’t work unless the exchanges did it together at the same time. He was open to it if other exchanges implemented it simultaneously. I did not lie, you are falsely accusing.
-
My proposal mentions by community effort and with the L1 Team we will all work towards off-chain burn tax adoption for a full 6 months. As to my efforts I have come up with the plan and I will see it through unto its conclusion. I will do my best to promote this on Twitter and use competitions to do so, working with the community and speak to whoever is suitable to achieve the goal for which I am committed. The L1 Team is best suited to reaching out to the exchanges and to offer any technical support with implementation, but it will need to be a whole community effort to succeed.
-
Achieving off-chain burns on exchanges is an innovation as no other coin has it. It will burn our supply so fast and is the true path to $1. At the same time builders on chain are tax exempt, as we don’t need them for burns in my plan, so I’m not harming that kind of innovation either.
I have a flowchart I am working on for this plan I will post soon, it has some more detail as to on-boarding exchanges.
1 Like
I refer you to the congregation. I think you need some serious help and you should see a specialist. the community can examine the comments and opinions I have made in other agora proposals and discussions, and they will see the difference between us.
1 Like
Which CEXs have you reached out before writing your proposal? Is the response positive ? Have they given an insight on how they would implement the “burn tax” across the board? Or have they shut you out cause chargin 2.4% on trades would drive away their client base?
please, go study a bit more about blockchain, POW/POS, CEX/DEX, trading, validating, governance and all stuff related to Terra Classic and Cosmos.
also, stop mixing business with religion. Your are really just making a fool of yourself and appealing to realigning to create not a fan-base, but a cult around all your nonsenses…
4 Likes
@wagnerdalcin my proposal is a continuation of this proposal #4793 which we did not fully explore. As a result of the communities prior efforts we achieved off-chain burns from Binance with their fees. We should never have dropped the 1.2% and persisted with our efforts. We have more options available with wallet whitelisting from on-chain tax as an incentive. Yes we can get them to agree to 1.2% burns off-chain if we gain a consensus of exchanges and work together as a community to achieve this goal. I will share my flowchart soon. I’ll let people consider the merits of my proposal and I will continue to pursue it.
1 Like
Here is the flow chart I made overviewing the whole proposal and each step that needs to be taken to achieve the fulfilment of my Vision Plan for LUNC to $1+. Please see below. 
3 Likes
Yes., we must somehow decrase a supply and yes we need to build utilities …
"Agora is a space where all opinions should be equal and relevant. This space is intended for peaceful, recpectfull - adult confrontation of opinions, arguing and explaining. It enables us to express our opinion and at the same time listen and try to understand another - different opinion. Sometimes with well-founded arguments, we convince someone or sometimes we change our own opinion. The need for accusation and passive aggression is unnecessary! It is normal to have different opinions.
My opinion: There is some kind of battle going on between “burn” advocates vs. “build-utility” advocates. But we probably need both. TR RoadMap also included “burn supply” in its plan. But now it’s suddenly a forbidden topic? Why? Let’s look at an example (argument) from real life… We all talk about how countries and central banks printing money all the time. Increased supply causes a decrease in the value of money, so we have inflation. Similarly, LUNA experienced inflation - actually hyperinflation. I am from Slovenia - the north of former Yugoslavia - now in the EU, and I am old enough to have experienced hyperinflation in the early 90s. Hyperinflation did not stop until they stopped printing money and started taking it out of circulation. During the devaluation, all companies (utility) also suffered greatly and could not develop at all. As a result, the state collapsed and we had to introduce a new currency… I don’t think we can avoid reducing the amount of coins in our (LUNC) case, until then the ecosystem and all its activities will not be able to function normally. Users of all applications will only return if we obtain a normal - healthy environment… otherwise, they won’t.
6 Likes
Unfortunately at this point burning topic is tabu and I simply don’t understand why.
Everybody is cheering when Binance is voluntary burning large amounts of lunc (although they have no obligation to do so) but nobody wants to increase the onchain burn tax.
It is quite sad that the whole project relies on third party burns to lower the oversupply. We as lunc “investors”/supporters/dreamers/etc should lead by example. LUNC’s own ecosystem should be the leader in burning the oversupply.
There are many arguments against increasing the burn rate:
- will stop dapps from coming on terra classic Blockchain - so far the tax was reduced by 1% and it did not triggered a massive influx of dapps. More than that there is the option to whitelist dapps if burning rate is an issue for them
- will decrease the volumes - same as above, the burn rate drop didn’t perform as expected
- the whales will stop trading lunc - as a “whale” you can buy on CEX/DEX and keep it there if you don’t want to pay the tax. Most likely “whales” will be more than happy to pay a tax burn if that tax will increase lunc price x fold.
There many other arguments against increasing the tax but in my opinion none of them is solid.
As I said, we should lead by example not wait for others to do our job.
I don’t get it why higher tax burn cannot work with bringing utility. As it is mentioned in the proposal, dapps can be whitelisted.
6 Likes