I will vote yes on this proposal. Everyone knows I was the one who initially proposed the burn tax because I truly believed it would benefit the chain. And indeed, it has. Thanks to the burn tax, we now have the means to fund development, replenish the oracle pool, and a deflationary mechanism.but was not enought.
That said, I no longer believe the burn tax is the only solution. There are other mechanisms that could benefit the chain even more, such as:
- Opening the market module, which, on paper, could burn a significant amount of LUNC.
- Implementing a staking mechanism for USTC, which could help stabilize its price and improve APRs.
- Auditing active and inactive wallets to better understand the true circulating supply.
- Expanding the use of DEXs and Layer 2 solutions like Terraport, Garuda, Terraswap, Juris Protocol, and Selenium Protocol.
Regarding this proposal, it seems the proposer is not genuinely aiming for an increase in the tax. If an increase happens, it would stop is narrative. Instead, it appears they have set themselves up for failure by engaging in a veto war with the anti-tax side, further polarizing the community.
This strategy seems like an inverted form of psychology: propose a tax increase, watch it fail, and then blame those who voted “No with Veto.” This, in turn, allows the proposer to rally support, ask for more power from the community, and strengthen their position as a validator.
All things considered, I will vote yes on this proposal, if only to help close this topic and move the discussion forward.If this proposal passes, it will mark the end of the war. One side will have to acknowledge that they were wrong, and we can finally move on. will follow the will of the community !
