Why burning makes no sense

General
1

A lot of users favor a burn that can not happen unless each and everyone chooses to burn their coins voluntarily.

A burn works for BNB because Binance holds a lot of BNB and they have reserves to do buybacks. CZ’s idea would have only worked IF there were enough reserves left to do significant buybacks. Otherwise only option is for folks to voluntarily burn their coins by sending you them to a burn address and who wants that? Or do you want the team to burn the coins you have in your wallet or blacklist them? Who wants that.

The other proposal to add a burn tax is pretty silly because it would never achieve desired result and would only make transactions more expensive, alienating projects and developers. You can not apply a burn tax on exchange transactions, only on DEX transactions. So most people would end up transacting on centralized exchanges to avoid this tax and therefore there won’t be any meaningful burn happening.

So what’s to be done? The fork proposal is the best idea. Both coins will retain value. Study the Ethereum Classic case, the Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, eCash or Bitcoin Gold case. All these coins are still around and valuable, born out of contentious or amicable hard forks. In Luna case there will be a fork either way. Choice here is - should it be a contentious one or an amicable one? That’s the real choice. A decent enough group will support the old chain, while a significant important group will get behind the new one. Both will live and survive.

17 Likes
2

As they are going with Fork then please distribute in a fair way.

IF you think it’s fair then please support.

Let team know to distribute people according to the current supply they bought at.
If someone bought at 1,2,40,60$ and supply was 400M-10B they would get according to that supply!
Don’t make them compete against 6.15T.
Or snapshot before the halt!

8 Likes
3

So can someone tell me who buy tokens with 70%supply with more then 20 wallets

3 Likes
4

You clearly don’t understand how bnb burning is done. Didn’t even bother to read the rest.

14 Likes
5

Ethereum Classic Circulating supply is 134B but in Luna’s case it is 6.5T how it will co-exist and survive with new chain ? plz explain

3 Likes
6

:yawning_face::yawning_face::yawning_face::yawning_face::yawning_face:

1 Like
7

Thank God there are good people
The vast majority are really sleepwalkers who do not know how to count 2 + 2 and at least try to turn on brain activity)
It is useless to explain that when burned, they have two options … lose EVERYTHING or wait a couple of years … and lose everything again))

2 Likes
8

why do you don’t want to buy back and burn? Just because there is no money to do it, but why? Because you’ve cashed out! The money of the “loyal investors” (NOT speculators!!!:slight_smile: , do you think they wanted to give you that money 4 nothing isn’t it?) You dumped the price! How could you make 6T LUNA within no time? I think you was the 1st who sold at 118-119 dollar.
That’s why you want to get enough time with the fork and Luna V2 . And what about LUNAC circulating supply then? You have to burn it also, isn’t? Did you ever see your Whitepaper? Page 6 for example.

5 Likes
9

It wont

1 Like
10

Binance used to do buybacks and burns using company’s profits. That’s what they did for a long time.

You seem totally unaware of this. Luna doesn’t have the reserves to make this happen and an autoburn mechanism won’t do much to significantly reduce supply and as OP pointed out there will be negative side effects stifling innovation and development.

4 Likes
11

sorry but if you think 0.01% burn fee on every transaction and trade is dumb then you’re dumb. yes it will take time to get rid of the extra supply. so what? sounds like you guys want a quick fix so you can dump your shit.

i find it funny that people will support 2-4 year VESTING from Do Kwon on the new chain but a transactional burn that might take the same amount of time or less, oh well that’s just too much.

16 Likes
12

The other proposal to add a burn tax is pretty silly because it would never achieve desired result and would only make transactions more expensive, alienating projects and developers.

Heavily disagree. Right now luna is selling at .00021. Even if there was a 50% sell/buy tax (which I’m not suggesting, just as a ridiculous example) you could grab 234,576 LUNA for $100. The burn tax’s goal is to significantly lower the number of LUNA, ideally back to the original 100M cap. Most people trying to cash in right now are hoping to get double their money back or more due to the ludicrously low price. The tax will lower their gains, but if LUNA is constantly being burned both the speculative and actual value of each LUNA token will allow any smart investor to make a profit.

The tax would also temporarily accelerate LUNA’s appreciation of value because it would cause LUNA to appreciate in value faster when the price is lower, and slower when its value was higher. In other words, a user that sells LUNA at a lower price and a higher tax rate can expect LUNA to rise faster during that time because more LUNA is being burned, whereas someone who buys it at $1 with a non-existent tax rate can expect LUNA to act pretty normally. The person who bought it at $1 also knows the price may rise quickly if the price dips significantly.

You can not apply a burn tax on exchange transactions, only on DEX transactions. So most people would end up transacting on centralized exchanges to avoid this tax and therefore there won’t be any meaningful burn happening.

This is a legitimate issue that needs to be solved, but other coins (Safemoon) have figured out this issue already. We would just need to implement similar code (btw the proposed burn tax is different than Safemoon’s burn tax insomuch that all LUNA will be burned, whereas Safemoon distributes the tax between users. I’ll link the full proposal below.)

So what’s to be done? The fork proposal is the best idea. Both coins will retain value.

Um… if by value you mean LUNA <= .00021, LUNA2 <= .00021, then yes, both coins will ‘retain value’. Value is created when people want to invest in something. Right now LUNA is perceived to be less trustworthy than things like DOGE. A burn tax will change that, a fork will not.

Personally, I think the LUNA2 fork should be created and simultaneously a burn tax should be implemented in the original LUNA. Then we can see what actually works.

Here’s a thing that explains the burn tax a lot better than I can:

13 Likes
13

Can UST be swipe from Luna ? One way swipe Luna to Ust. If anyone make UST from Luna , terra can pay a little more for it (1% or 2% extra UST) . so people burn luna using terra swipe. As a result

  1. Ust market cap up.
  2. Luna burn
1 Like
14

the point would be to burn organically over time and build a healthy system versus some get rich quick scheme to pump the price, it makes sense particularly if the market is about to go into a deep bear phase to transactionally burn

it could well be the other blue chips and the traditional markets also suffer monumental price drops this year

3 Likes
15

great point. totally agree with you, and what if same incident happens to luna v2 while its being vested…
gg

16

硬分叉更加愚蠢，dk已经没有信用，借鉴以太坊等。有一个本质的区别 以太坊是在成功时分叉，这个是失败的时候分叉。失败永远失败，项目方已经没有信用。请不要用以太坊成功的案例来尝试这个，永远失败

17

Yes Please. reward the people according to THE PRICE THEY PAID on when and where they bought . So much computational power is being used to do these same type of calculations, very well be done for this emergency. thank you. @dokwon

1 Like
18

Stop spreading nonsense because you want a bailout. Using fees to burn is perfectly possible.

6 Likes
19

If you want fork then do tht but increase supply to 100 billion or more evrybody gets their coins as it is and once the network stabilises start burning these new coins

20

Make a tax on all transactions. Use the tax for the burn. Simple

3 Likes