Saturday, December 3, 2022
HomeCrypto NewsMarketTerra Rebels Respond To Criticism That The Latest Terra Luna Classic (LUNC)...

Terra Rebels Respond To Criticism That The Latest Terra Luna Classic (LUNC) Tax Proposal Is Authoritarian

- Advertisement -
Follow-Us-On-Google-News

Fatman describes the latest LUNC tax proposal as worse than the burn tax parameter and authoritarian.



In a tweet on Friday, famous Terra whistleblower FatMan criticized the latest community proposal to reduce the tax burn parameter to 0.2% and allocate 10% of the tax to the community pool for development as authoritarian.

“Giving 10% of the tax to yourself is an even worse idea than the burn tax,” tweets FatMan. “Devs absolutely deserve to be paid – either through donations or via formal community pool spend proposals – but automatically redirecting 10% of every burn to “contributors” is authoritarian & wrong.”

FatMan believes that the Terra Classic chain should abandon the tax and mandatory donations and focus on providing utility and attracting decentralized applications (DApps).

The Terra Rebels Respond

Unsurprisingly, the comments by FatMan have attracted a lot of attention and responses from key members of the Terra Rebels.

For example, Edward Kim clarified that funds allocated to the community pool must still pass a governance vote to be distributed. Consequently, Terra Rebels do not have free access or a claim to the pool.

Meanwhile, Alex Forshaw described the comments by FatMan as unfair, as he asserted that a community-owned pool to fund developments is the only option left under the status quo. Notably, Forshaw challenged FatMan to propose an alternative.

Furthermore, StrathCole emphasizes Kim’s point highlighting that each spend has to go through a governance vote. In addition, he notes that even if the proposer explicitly stated that the 10% should be reserved for developers, it is not what the proposal achieves at the end of the day. 

Notably, none of the Terra Classic developers were involved in writing the proposal in question – proposal 5234.

It bears mentioning that proposal 5234 comes as the current 1.2% tax parameter has failed to meet expectations. It hopes to attract on-chain volume lost since the 1.2% tax implementation and provide a means for sustainable chain development.

Notably, the author of the proposal, Duncan Day, in response to FatMan’s concerns, while admitting errors in his writings, confirms that the outcome would be as stated by Kim and Strathmore.

Kim has recently revealed support for the proposal, as reported by The Crypto Basic.

- Advertisement -
Mark Brennan
Mark Brennanhttps://thecryptobasic.com/
Mark Brennan has been active in the cryptocurrency sector since 2014. His love and passion for the nascent industry drove him to develop interest in writing about important developments and updates about cryptocurrencies and blockchain. Brennan, who holds a Masters degree in Business Administration, learned about the potential of blockchain technology. Aside from crypto journalism, Brennan runs an education center, where he educates people about the asset class.

Disclaimer: The content is for informational purposes only, may include the author's personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of TheCryptoBasic. All Financial investments, including crypto, carry significant risk, so always do your complete research before investing. Never invest money you cannot afford to lose; the author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your financial loss or gains.

- Advertisment -

Recent News & Articles

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Get Updated with All The latest Crypto News, Articles, Reviews, Analysis and much more. Delivered Every Monday.