J Feng 🌕

$Luna is better Classic 🌕

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

Been building the Burrito ecosystem:

Burrito AI — https://t.co/q3q3oDaB95
Burrito Monitor — https://t.co/aoqZhucSP5
Burrito App — https://t.co/PjClQsI3OW
Burrito Finder — https://t.co/XzwIvwUMS7

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.

[CZ 🔶 BNB @cz_binance]

When BNB started 9 years ago, I never thought I would be ringing the bell for a blockchain token (treasury) on NASDAQ one day. I don’t know what shows crypto and tradfi converging more than this.

#BNB Standard

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

@phoenix_dir great job👍

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

@_LunaRocket @StatsBin @L_U_N_C 😂he is my soulmate.

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

@CoincimCoincimm Bro, you don’t really need to tweet this.😂

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

@pabloabritos @LeonardoLUNC @cz_binance check @burrito__money

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

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

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

@seanyboy8369 @JurisProtocol @frag_dude @BumeoCapital lmao

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

@LeonardoLUNC I’ve built a bunch of random shit😂 Feel free to check it out at https://t.co/0RkY3Xo2Yg

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

If you’re so sure the tax will kill the chain, put your money where your mouth is.

Short $LUNC now. Crank up the leverage.

Good luck. 😂

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

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.

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

I respect your point of view, and I genuinely appreciate this discussion.

I still believe a truly great product won't be stopped by the burn tax.

Maybe that's where you and I see things differently.

I guess there's only one way to find out.

I'll keep building, and I'll do my best to prove it with my own products.

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

I actually think we’re looking at the same problem from two different angles.

You’re focused on demand.
I’m focused on supply more.

From my perspective, LUNC’s biggest long-term problem is still its enormous supply. That’s why I support the burn tax. Not because I believe it will magically create users, dApps or volume, but because I believe reducing supply is one of the few tools we still have.

A tool that helps reduce supply but is never used is, in my opinion, a tool we’ve chosen to abandon.

At the same time, I completely agree with you that demand is what ultimately determines whether this chain succeeds.

A great product creates demand.
Demand creates volume.
Volume creates burns.

The burn tax doesn’t replace demand. It complements it.

That’s why I don’t see these two ideas as competing with each other.

Supporting a higher burn tax does not mean believing the burn tax alone will solve all of LUNC’s problems.

The part where we probably disagree is this:
I don’t believe a genuinely great product will fail because of an extra 1% tax.

If one day we have a successful product with real users, real liquidity and real demand, and we can clearly demonstrate that the burn tax is the primary thing holding it back, then I’d have no problem supporting a change. But today, I don’t think that’s where we are.

For the last four years, the community also tested another economic theory—that lowering the tax would attract more developers, more dApps and more activity. Looking back today, I don’t think the outcome clearly proved that theory either.

So I don’t think either of us can honestly claim that our economic model has already been proven.
The market will decide that—not me.

I also don’t see this as an argument between builders and burn supporters.

But there is another group in this community that I genuinely struggle to understand.

They don’t build anything.
They oppose the burn tax.
And at the same time, they call almost every builder a scammer.

I honestly don’t know what future they expect for LUNC.

Disagreeing with an idea is completely fair. Calling everyone who is actually trying to build a scammer is not.

Whatever happens, I sincerely hope Ceramic succeeds. A successful project benefits the entire ecosystem, and this entire tax debate will become much less important.

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

@frag_dude I wasn't talking about you. 😂 Juris and Do are the two on-chain projects I’m most excited about.

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

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.

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

I agree. If saving LUNC was that easy, Do Kwon would’ve done it instead of forking Luna 2.0.

And the old UST boom was not real. Chai activity was manipulated, and Anchor’s 20% yield had to be funded with hundreds of millions in subsidies because the actual revenue couldn’t support it.

We’re not going to recreate that today.

What we really need now is a killer dApp. 😂

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

@LeonardoLUNC We can debate the tax and keep building at the same time. 😂Keep building.

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

If the burn tax ever becomes a real obstacle to a successful product, we can vote to remove or adjust it. That’s what governance is for.

I just don’t believe that’s where we are today.

A genuinely good product won’t succeed or fail because of a 1% tax difference. Sometimes a strong burn policy even adds to the chain’s narrative.

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

Tax won’t solve inflation. It’s just one of the tools we have to fight it.

The biggest pumps and dumps usually have very little to do with what is actually happening on-chain anyway. Most of it is large capital moving the market.

With a higher tax, at least the community gets something from it: more burns and more money in the community pool.

But honestly, unless someone comes up with a project the whole community can strongly rally behind, I don’t see community funding being easy to get right now. 😂

I never understand it when people say the tax is hurting dApps.

Let’s be objective. Compared with popular products like Pump, Polymarket and Hyperliquid, most projects on our chain—including mine—are basically shit. At best, they are hobby projects.

The problem is not the tax. The projects are just not good enough yet.

Better to keep our heads down and build. In the end, we can only count on ourselves.

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

@LeonardoLUNC Correct the mistakes of the past.

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

@stablemanata well, so what’s the point

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

@stablemanata Calling it “political” doesn’t make it political. Money talks. That’s true everywhere in the world.

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

@stablemanata 90% thats communism😂

[J Feng 🌕 @stablefeng]

🤝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.