
J Feng 🌕
979 posts

J Feng 🌕
@stablefeng
$Luna is better Classic 🌕
Terra Katılım April 2015
82 Takip Edilen5.6K Takipçiler
2026 Yıllık Özeti
@stablefeng hesabının Twitter yılını gör
Sabitlenmiş Tweet

Been building the Burrito ecosystem:
Burrito AI — ai.burrito.money
Burrito Monitor — monitor.burrito.money
Burrito App — app.burrito.money
Burrito Finder — finder.burrito.money
Burrito AI also introduces a new allocation mechanism:
🔥 5% burned
🌯 5% sent to the Community Pool
🔮 5% sent to the Staking & Oracle Pool
Built to create long-term value for the entire Burrito community.
More soon.
English


🤝That’s exactly my point.
Four years ago, the burden of proof was on those who wanted to reduce the tax.
They told the community lower taxes would attract developers, dApps and on-chain activity.
Four years later, where is the evidence?
If we’re going to demand evidence today, then we should also be honest enough to judge the last four years by the same standard.
Lower taxes never delivered what was promised.
The difference is that the 1.2% tax was never even given enough time to prove whether it could work.
Standards should apply equally to both sides.
Supporting a higher burn tax is not the same as believing the burn tax is a magic solution. We support it because it’s one of the tools we have—not because it’s the only one we need. As far as I can tell, that’s how most Yes voters see it too.
English

That's fair. Results do matter. Which is exactly why I asked for an economic model before tripling the tax.
If someone proposes increasing costs by 200%, the burden is on them to show why it will improve adoption, volume or burns. I haven't seen that evidence.
If in six months on-chain activity, users and volume are all materially higher because of the 1.5% tax, I'll happily admit I was wrong.
But if they're not, I hope the same willingness to revisit the policy exists on the other side too. 🙂
English

Four years ago, this community came together around the 1.2% burn tax.
Since then, we’ve been through everything. It was reduced to 0.2%, later raised to 0.5%, and now, after years of arguments and setbacks, the tax is officially 1.5%.
The ironic part is that many of the people who pushed hardest to reduce it to 0.2% left this community a long time ago. But those of us who stayed are still here, still building, still fighting and still believing.
Nobody likes paying taxes. But for me, the burn tax has always represented our determination to reduce the supply and fight inflation.
A huge thank you to my dearest comrades: @VegasMorph @L_U_N_C @ForTheCross_CH
And a special thank you to my whale friend for making a thoughtful decision at such a critical moment. Your support made a real difference.
This was not an easy victory. It took four years.
Today, we brought the original commitment back. 🔥
And why four years?
Because CZ gave us the answer a long time ago.
A secret plan. 4️⃣😂🔥 terra-luna:native

English

@stablemanata Whether it works or not isn’t for you to decide, is it?😂
English

Some people pretend they’re debating tax and technology, but what they’re really protecting is their own projects, delegations, funding and narratives.
They spread fear, present themselves as the only people with the answers, and try to convince everyone that only they can save LUNC.
I don’t buy it.
If their theories and recovery plans really worked, we would have seen the results by now.
After all these years, results matter more than long threads, big promises and self-appointed experts.
If they could save LUNC, they would have done it already.
English

233 billion LUNC voted Yes. That does not mean the community is against builders. It means people have listened to the same warning for four years and no longer accept it as fact.
We were told that reducing the tax would attract developers, dApps and volume. So the 1.2% tax was quickly reduced to 0.2%, and later changed to 0.5%. Four years have passed. Where are the results?
We did not see the wave of useful products and meaningful activity that was promised. What we mostly got were small games, NFTs, meme coins and new token launches that created noise for a while but very little lasting demand. Some projects were far better at marketing and raising money than bringing value to Terra Classic.
Yet the tax is still blamed for everything.
The truth is simple: people use a product because it is useful, interesting, fun or gives them a real opportunity to earn. A good product creates its own demand. A bad product does not suddenly become successful because the tax is 0.2% instead of 1.2%.
I am also a builder. I have created some dApps, and I want to keep making them better, more polished and more useful. I want them to bring convenience and real earning opportunities to users. The tax has never stopped me from building, and I have never seen it as the real problem.
That is why I do not understand how you can keep speaking as if this tax will destroy builders while never explaining exactly what it prevents Ceramic from doing. Which part of Ceramic becomes impossible because of an additional 1%? Which part of its model stops working?
I know work has been done on Ceramic, and I am not denying that. But Ceramic has also been discussed for years, and the measurable result that would prove its core theory is correct has still not arrived. Until then, it remains a theory too.
You are free to believe in your theory, just as others are free to believe in the burn tax. But until Ceramic delivers measurable results, you are in no position to speak as if your theory has already been proven and everyone else is simply wrong.
None of us is a saint. None of us is the final economic authority on Terra Classic. Confidence, complicated models and long explanations do not prove anything by themselves.
We are not trying to rob users or punish builders. We are correcting a decision made four years ago and restoring a burn tax that was never given a fair chance.
The community has heard both sides. 233 billion LUNC chose Yes.
Results decide who was right. Not who wrote the longest explanation.
English

That's four years ago, when Binance voluntarily burned 100% of its LUNC trading profits to help reduce supply.
The community later voted to remint 50% of those burns back into circulation.
That cash grab didn't last long. Now we're back with a 1.5% on-chain transaction tax, introduced just as builders are trying to bring activity back to Terra Classic.
Every time there is a chance of recovery, some validators seem more interested in extracting more value from the remaining users than creating the conditions for sustainable growth.
This latest vote raised the tax without presenting a credible economic analysis, impact assessment or evidence that it will increase on-chain adoption.
Binance if your reading this please help me educate a part of the lunc community on the importance of builders and the folly of thinking you can tax your way to growth especially when its not connected to any plan
🙏 for your years of support
English

@lunccryptowolf @stablefeng @cz_binance It won’t bring more users. They are dreaming. 1.5% on our tiny on-chain volume. Give it two months to fall flat on its face
English
J Feng 🌕 retweetledi

We fought incredibly hard to implement the 1.2% tax 4 years ago.
But before it was ever given a fair chance, people were persuaded to reduce it. One article from Edward Kim influenced many decisions, and the tax was quickly lowered to 0.2%.
How naive did people have to be to believe that a lower tax would suddenly attract more developers?
4 years have passed. There is no reason to keep believing the same story that the tax is responsible for the lack of development or volume.
Today’s vote proves that this chain still has the ability to correct its mistakes.
The mistake made four years ago has finally been repaired.
Whether volume grows now depends on the quality of the products developers create—not on a 1% difference in tax.
English

@stablefeng @cz_binance Yes as you said no one likes paying tax, so how could you believe that putting a 3% round trip on the chain will bring in more users? If a convenience store has an entry and exit tax will you go in that store or just use another one?
English

@LunCAsylum @cz_binance Ignorance is far more dangerous than poverty.
English

@stablefeng @cz_binance yeah just like the bot accounts underneath agreeing with everything you say
English

@stablefeng @cz_binance grifters, just passed a prop to line their own pockets
English
J Feng 🌕 retweetledi

The 1.5% on-chain tax has officially passed #LUNC governance! 🎉 Thank you to the community member who put this proposal to vote, who is blessed indeed. 👏
Thank you to all the validators and community members who voted yes on the 1.5% tax proposal! 💯
This proposal restores the focus of LUNC on burning, by tripling the burn tax rate, as well as community pool and oracle pool funding from the tax. 🔥
I have been called many things, but I thank God for fulfilling the dream He showed to me over 3 years ago on 15 March 2023, of the passing of the 1.5% tax! 🙏
It took patience, several vote attempts and a huge amount of effort. Thanks be to God for bringing the victory!
See the list of validators who voted in support here: validator.info/terra-classic/…
Some even chose to support when they were previously against the proposal. Great work! 👏
A huge thanks to those who have supported the burn tax from the beginning!


English

I'm not sure how else to explain it, so let's just focus on the numbers.
You just voted to triple the tax on the only part of Terra Classic that still has genuine growth potential: on-chain activity.
On-chain trading today is tiny. It should be measured in millions of dollars per day, not where it is now.
So the solution is to make using the chain three times more expensive?
We don't need to tax the little activity we have left. We need to create the conditions for millions in daily on-chain volume. You don't grow an economy by making participation more expensive.
Congratulations for taking back control i look forward to seeing the results 🙂
English

What a joke..... These 24 validators voted YES to raise the on-chain tax to 1.5%, despite the current 7-day taxable volume showing just:
🔥 21,383 LUNC
At today’s activity levels, this is not a serious burn strategy. It is squeezing more from an almost empty pipeline.
What comes next: higher gas fees, more inflationary staking rewards, another tax increase? 🤣
Terra Classic does not need more extraction. It needs users, builders, liquidity and volume. You cannot tax the chain back to growth.

English


Your statement is truth. I was also in the 1.2% tax team and fought hard with 0.2% proposers. It was a shame at that time if Vegas had a better English capability, the outcome may differ. But I accepted the governance decision.
1.5% tax now, I don’t think the situation is the same as 2022. But why not giving it a try. Let’s see what happens, then we can always readjust
English

+rep
TerraCVita@TerracVita
We believe in a low tax, ecosystem focussed growth model for #TerraClassic. However maybe it is an opportune moment to give a higher tax strategy a chance to see if it works. If unsuccessful we can change it in the future. Good luck. #MALUGA validator.info/terra-classic/…
QST

@stablefeng @cz_binance I think it's time to rename it to something else. this isn't a tax. it is more like a 'burn levy' or 'burn charge'.
English
@stablefeng karşılaştırmaları
@stablefeng vs @stablemanata @stablefeng vs @vegasmorph @l_u_n_c vs @stablefeng @forthecross_ch vs @stablefeng @iltrozmn vs @stablefeng @battleforcelunc vs @stablefeng
Kendi karşılaştırmanı oluştur 


