Why burning makes no sense

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

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

It wont

1 Like

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 Likes

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

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

3 Likes

That can’t be done. Would only apply to Dex and on-chain transactions not to ALL transactions. Most transactions take place on CEXes.

Binance never did buy backs. They got 100m bnb at ico and 100m bnb went to ico participants. They were burning those bnb every quarter $ wise 20% of their profits. Few months ago their introduced their Auto-Burn. Which is still burning those bnb but it is depended on formula (most important here is avg price of bnb for that quarter.

They also have real time burning. Small % from fees. So bnb is actually deflationary.

I just wanted to point out that OP doesn’t get bnb burning. Nothing about luna.

1 Like

People say burn because every fork idea is unfair. Fork will only save the ecosystem not people. Everyone will get lost no matter new holder or old holder, ust holder or luna holder… Everyone will get rekt. Buying luna, ust now is nonsense…

Luna is dead, ust is dead… Do Kwon should go to jail or something need to be done him…

4 Likes

Clearly you ain’t smart guy. Do you think new chain will add more value? Are you saying you’re smarter than CZ? It’s clearer now you’re a random dumbass guy.

2 Likes

are you trying to tell me that the trillions of Luna tokens minted in just three days makes sense?

2 Likes

You and the like are spreading nonsense.
SEVEN TRILLION coins in circulation!
TENS OF BILLIONS in wallets.
And no one will sell and give them for burning for years.
People are willing to risk millions for big profits.
And as a rule, beggar hamsters with a handful of coins that they bought at exorbitant prices yell about burning, and did not average on the fall, because they were afraid.
While others were saving their ship.
And who is more profitable for the company?
Do you want to burn? Then only Everything, together with your coins and without compensation. Except for the random billion.