Skip to main content
Terra Classic statsLUNC · USTC · ON-CHAIN DATA
StatsBin logo

StatsBin.

Terra Classic Stats

Burn AdsSearchWallet
HomeNetworkBridgesSupplyStakingBurnsValidatorsWalletsProposalsNewsGamesTools

StatsBin.

The Terra Classic observatory

Independent LUNC and USTC data, from supply and burns to validators, wallets and governance.

Explore

LUNC dashboardIndexed chain historyLUNC stakingLUNC supplyBurn intelligenceValidatorsGovernanceLUNC newsLUNC Games

Connect

Data methodologyMachine access · LUNCAgentStatsBin LUNC Validator Follow on X Contact
© 2026 StatsBin · Independent Terra Classic intelligence
PrivacyTermsCookiesAccessibility

Loading proposal evidence

Reading the proposal and its separately reported chain context.

Loading the proposal. Its status, vote amounts and original source times will appear when the readings are ready.

Back to governance

Proposal and lifecycle

Waiting for evidence.

Vote math and sources

Waiting for evidence.

Executable messages

Waiting for evidence.

Reality Check evidence

Waiting for evidence.

This pending view does not establish a proposal result, current voting power or a successful source read.

All proposalsRaw proposal
Proposal #11997
REJECTED
Last saved data
Text mandate

CEX spot trade burn program progress. Boost demand for Whitelisting

A proposal by @LUNCBurnProgram (X handle and Validator name) CEXs have multiple internal LUNC and USTC wallets and they get taxed (so it costs them money) whenever they move coins on-chain between these wallets. We know that CEXs want to gain exemption from on-chain taxes by having their wallets whitelisted. This means that we have something that CEXs want, and we should make the most of it. Please ensure you read this commonwealth post thoroughly to understand the background before you vote: https://commonwealth.im/terra-classic/discussion/14690-cex-spot-trade-burn-program-progress-and-proposed-changes The deal to the CEXs is that we will whitelist their wallets in exchange for implementing a spot trade burn tax. Refer to Binance and CoinInn examples in the link. The team from @LUNCBurnProgram has lined up a major CEX who want to be whitelisted in exchange for implementing a spot trade (off chain) burn tax. However, this major CEX will only start burning based on the condition that we get participation from more exchanges. We have received additional “we will consider if others join” answers from other CEXs. Thus, we are at a position where we need the first big fish to join to kickstart the domino effect. We will increase the probability of getting the ball rolling by boosting the demand for what we are offering to CEXs. If we raise the on-chain tax, we will boost the demand for tax exemption (wallet whitelisting), it’s a basic principle. Again, refer to the commonwealth post. We therefore propose to raise the on-chain tax to 1%, which is at the upper limit of the 0.1% to 1% currency tax range as proposed by economists, including James Tobin (DYOR). This implies that we are working within the ranges of tested currency tax models. If the tax is higher, more CEXs will apply for whitelisting in exchange for implementing spot trade / off-chain burns. Looking back, we never offered whitelisting when the tax rate was 1.2%, so we missed the opportunity when the tax rate was at 1.2%. Raising the tax will add the additional needed leverage for negotiations and we will get more CEXs to burn. On-chain and off-chain tax rates are 2 independent things. The rates should not be the same. Binance effectively implemented a 0.1% off-chain (spot trade) burn tax when the on-chain rate was still 1.2%, proving that on-chain and off-chain tax do not need to be the same. Binance changed their tax to 0.05% later. Therefore, this proposal does not change the official Global LUNC Burn Program rules and validity as established through proposal 11824. This proposal only relates to the on-chain tax rate change to 1%. A higher tax rate does not affect utility from a technical perspective. The fact that developers must cater for a burn tax in code is the challenge. Therefore, whether the tax is 0.1% or 10%, the technical development challenge remains the same. Tax2Gas will lower implementation barriers for dApp developers. An additional benefit is that the increase in tax will allow for an increase in burns during times of high on-chain activity. Timing of the implementation: We need the on-chain tax rate increase to be implemented immediately upon passing of this proposal, before the Tax2Gas enhancement is released. Refer to the commonwealth post for the reason. Voting guidelines and implication: By voting yes to this proposal, you agree that we set the LUNC and USTC tax policy to 0.01 (1%) in order to boost the demand for whitelisting. The current on-chain 80/20 split remains unchanged. The Tax2Gas development will adopt this proposed 1% tax upon completion. The outcome of this vote does not affect the validity of the #GlobalLUNCBurnProgram in any way. Whether this proposal fails or passes, the #GlobalLUNCBurnProgram remains the officially approved program. This vote only relates to raising the on-chain tax to 1%. Increasing the on-chain tax will greatly increase the probability of getting the spot trade burn program started. NOTE: Devs should please reach out to @LUNCBurnProgram so we can coordinate the tax adjustment Code change: { "subspace": "treasury", "key": "TaxPolicy", "value": "{\"rate_min\": \"0.01\", \"rate_max\": \"0.01\", \"cap\":{ \"denom\":\"usdr\", \"amount\":\"60000000000000000\"}, \"change_rate_max\":\"0.0\"}" }

Not approved
high confidence · manual executionVote or view your voteRecorded validator choices

Vote on proposal #11997

Connect Keplr to read your vote and review a new vote or update while the chain keeps voting open.

REJECTED · Voting deadline 2024-01-26 16:59:51 UTC

Your wallet holds the keys and approves each transaction. A submitted vote can have no voting power; participation weight and final eligibility are determined by the chain.

Get Keplr
Choose your vote

Submitted

19 Jan 2024, 16:59:51 UTC

Vote closed

26 Jan 2024, 16:59:51 UTC

Not approved

The proposal did not produce an approved governance action.

Reported governance context

Proposal status, current block and node version are separate responses with their own original clocks.

Reported proposal status
REJECTED
Reported current block
31256598
Reported app / SDK version
4.1.1 / v0.53.6

A reported PASSED status for routed protocol messages is consistent with successful governance handlers in supported SDK versions. The production fork and its version at execution are not independently established here. A text mandate still needs delivery evidence; a requested treasury payment is not a reconciled recipient payout.

Governance sources & scope
Original proposal response completion (UTC)
2026-11-12T14:44:43.705Z
Public proposal requested origin
Withheld or unavailable
Original current block response completion (UTC)
2026-11-12T14:44:43.731Z
Reported block header time (UTC)
2026-11-12T14:44:37.197982300Z
Original node-info response completion (UTC)
2026-11-12T14:44:43.730Z

Current block response metadata

Reported response header height: 31256598 · reported

Public requested / response origin: Withheld or unavailable / Withheld or unavailable

Node info response metadata

Reported response header height: 31256598 · reported

Public requested / response origin: Withheld or unavailable / Withheld or unavailable

Cached responses keep their original completion clocks. The block header time is a reported chain time, separate from HTTP completion and page assembly. Missing, invalid, future, wrong-chain or legacy source evidence is withheld. The block and node-info reads have no common-height guarantee; reported response metadata does not authenticate chain state.

A current block reaching an upgrade target does not prove software activation or validator adoption. A separately reported current node version does not establish the historical execution version or which proposal caused it. These responses do not independently verify execution receipts, recipient payouts or off-chain delivery.

Vote math

Current or final voting power, calculated from the on-chain tally.

Historical bonded stake and vote-close parameters are not available here. Turnout and threshold checks are withheld; the recorded proposal status remains authoritative.

Amounts use the separate tally endpoint response.

Vote math sources & scope

Selected tally

Original response completion (UTC)
2026-11-12T14:44:43.722Z
Reported response header height
31256598 · reported
Public requested origin
Withheld or unavailable
Public response origin
Withheld or unavailable

Current staking pool

Original response completion (UTC)
2026-11-12T14:44:43.722Z
Reported response header height
31256598 · reported
Public requested origin
Withheld or unavailable
Public response origin
Withheld or unavailable

Current tallying parameters

Original response completion (UTC)
2026-11-12T14:44:43.722Z
Reported response header height
31256598 · reported
Public requested origin
Withheld or unavailable
Public response origin
Withheld or unavailable

Current reported SDK context

Original response completion (UTC)
2026-11-12T14:44:43.730Z
Reported response header height
31256598 · reported
Public requested origin
Withheld or unavailable
Public response origin
Withheld or unavailable
Reported proposal approval rule
Ordinary
Supported current SDK model context
v0.53.6
Selected approval threshold
50.00%
Reported raw tally inputs
Yes reported micro voting power
9286894516967661
No reported micro voting power
550075810205150506
Abstain reported micro voting power
35512990147181078
No with veto reported micro voting power
126846428562661704

The model uses SDK0.53.6/math1.5.3 fixed18-place quotient and half-even rounding on reported integer aggregates. Quorum allows equality; approval and veto require strictly greater shares. Expedited approval uses its separately returned expedited threshold. Missing supported SDK/rule/threshold evidence withholds decisions. Internal fractional voting power and production custom tally logic are not reconstructed or independently established.

Separately reported current bonded stake
897,160,665,251.97 LUNC
Current quorum / approval / veto thresholds
40.00% / 50.00% / 33.40%

Cached inputs keep their original completion clocks. These independently read responses have no common-height guarantee; reported headers do not authenticate chain state. Missing, invalid, future or legacy evidence is withheld. Reported zero votes stay zero; unavailable amounts are not zero votes.

Current stake and thresholds are shown only as current context. They are not used to reconstruct a closed proposal’s turnout or threshold result. This does not establish historical voter eligibility, voting weights or vote-close rules. Amounts are approximate displayed LUNC from reported micro amounts; these reads do not verify execution, payouts or delivery.

Yes9,286,894,516.97 LUNC · 1.29%
No550,075,810,205.15 LUNC · 76.22%
No with veto126,846,428,562.66 LUNC · 17.58%
Abstain35,512,990,147.18 LUNC · 4.92%

Quorum

Not available

Participation unavailable

Approval

Not available

1.35% decisive Yes

Veto

Not available

17.58% of participation

Expected impact

What this message can change—not a prediction of price.

Community mandate
Manual delivery
  • Records community intent but does not itself change chain state.
  • Delivery requires external evidence such as code, releases, transactions, or milestone reports.

Outcome scoreboard

Changes between retained samples near vote close and the 7, 30, and 90 day targets. Sample times and a 36 hour tolerance show how closely each pair matches its target.

Retained outcome assembly available

These retained comparisons have a separate assembly clock. It does not refresh the original proposal, block, node or parameter source clocks.

Outcome assembly & scope
Optional work started (UTC)
2026-11-12T14:44:43.731Z
Optional work completed (UTC)
2026-11-12T14:44:43.731Z

These times describe optional assembly, separate from retained sample capture times and original upstream response completion. Optional outcome work has a 1.2-second wait budget. Core reads and server load can make the total response take longer. The same admitted work continues after that wait; later requests can reuse its completed result. The original core cache and source clocks remain unchanged. No automatic page polling is added.

Manual success criteria required

This proposal does not map cleanly to a chain-wide metric. Delivery evidence must come from its stated milestones.

On-chain message evidence

/cosmos.gov.v1.MsgExecLegacyContent/cosmos.gov.v1beta1.TextProposal