K9 Sell Tax Proposal 10% BURN!

General
,
1

WHAT: Implement a 10% sell tax on all K9 sales through the smart contract. 7% (out of 10%) of said sell tax will go to burning K9 Tokens. At each unlock date (6th of each month) The sales tax will be manually dropped 1%, reflecting the lessened impact of unlocked tokens on the total circulating market cap as the months go on. The 1% sell tax will be reduced until March of 2025 when buy and sell tax will collectively be 0/0.

WHO: The vast majority of the volume generated on this token has not been generated through presale, KOLS, Team, Advisors, or otherwise, but US, the investors of $KNINE via Defi exchange

WHERE: Uniswap/k9 Smart contract

WHEN: ASAP. Before the series of monthly unlocks occur on May 6th

‍HOW: Simply changing the sell tax through Etherscan and manually sending tokens to burn wallet. (can be done with a few clicks)

WHY: Simply put, I come from the perspective as a DEX only trader. I strongly believe in the power of Decentralized Finance. Many traders who bought high on any token, stare at the charts daily, wondering if they will ever get there initial investment back or make a profit. We’ve all been there. As the shares of $KNINE get diluted monthly, how can we as holders increase our % of the pie, to truly honor those who believe in K9 as a long term opportunity.

Burns!

With 7% of sell tax going to burn. We will see the supply of K9 dwindle rapidly and set the precedent that a deflationary model is an integral part of K9 Finance’s ecosystem. (something that has yet to be established). For this to exist as a sustainable model I kept the 3% sell tax going to it’s usual destination to maintain the engines that drive the tech. Once our beautiful German Shepard is trained, it can be taken off the leash. March of next year, our buy/sell tax will truly be 0/0, setting us up for massive scalability.

Transparently, those who were in on presale are up many Xs. What I’m suggesting is to take 1x out of the impatient among their ranks, to bring value back to the long term holders. The K9 LSD utility holds water in and of itself (pun intended), but why not reward those who traded earnestly, long term holders, and those who believe that this project is more than a flash in the pan. This project is the catalyst that will bring $BONE, Shibarium, and $KNINE to it’s rightful place as leaders of the Ethereum L2 market.

My proposal is purely altruistic and, I believe, would also be mutually agreed upon by those being unlocked as the collective good of K9 finance benefits the collective good of holders across the board.

5 Likes
2

My personal opinion of this is that it would set a bad precedent to propose raising the tax after there was just an unanimous DAO vote to lower it to 3%. Especially doing so only days after implimenting the new tax. I feel it would lead to another proposal regarding tax, and another and another creating an instability in our tax structure. I also dont believe burning tokens give the instant gratification or price movement the retail holder hopes and expects. Begining to burn tokens with a project being built with true utility prior to the completion of that utility jumps the gun. I am interested to hear others opinions though.

12 Likes
3

I like how you are thinking. But I believe it would be counter productive in the grand scheme of things for 2 reasons.

  1. i believe it would be terrifying to investors who do their homework to see a 0% buy tax and a 10% sells tax. They’d feel trapped. Many stayed out due to the imposing buy tax and they waited for a long time to only miss when the buy tax went to zero while many others like myself DCA’d the dips feeling that tax.

  2. I feel it is far too soon to be imposing a tax after we reduced it. And we also must think about they tax and fee system revolving around farming and liquid staking.

I feel like its too soon.

7 Likes
4

1
We just reduce the tax and now we are asking to increase the tax again. I believe this to be a bad idea.

2
I believe it too soon to talk about a burn. Especially a large tax burn before k9 is actually operational.

3
Over taxing is always a discouragement to new holders and current holders. We need to mindfully to the effect and negativity taxing can have on a project.

9 Likes
5

While I understand the intention behind the proposed tax as a means to bolster long-term holding and add deflationary pressure, I have reservations about the timing of its implementation. We’ve recently transitioned to a new tax structure, and introducing another change so swiftly could be perceived as inconsistent and may inject further volatility into a market that’s already sensitive.

In my view, a more prudent approach would be to allow the market to acclimate to the recent tax adjustments before revisiting the conversation. This could be aligned with our Q3 or Q4 milestones when the project’s further development stages have been realized, and there’s more stability and clarity regarding the token’s position.

Moreover, the upcoming vesting tokens represent commitments from early investors who have not only supported us from the beginning but also didn’t partake in the initial surge post-launch. A sudden 10% tax could feel like a compounded penalty rather than a reward for their early faith in our project.

In the spirit of fostering a fair and growth-oriented community, I propose that we hold this discussion later in the year, perhaps post-Q3, to gauge the market’s health and sentiment more accurately. This way, we can make a more informed decision that aligns with the best interests of all stakeholders involved.

8 Likes
6

I definitely agree way too early for a burn. We need to be patient and follow the laid out timeline. The team has put a lot of time and effort into planning and strategy for the best results. I believe they have delivered on every level.

11 Likes
7

We have not launched this token’s platform for the public yet and already we have had one proposal to change the tax get approved, with a second proposal seemingly hours after the first had been implemented.

I know I expressed my opinion on the first proposal late but what I originally wrote I will stand behind. We should not have changed the price until after public access in quarter three. I still believe that invaluable data has been lost.

Moving forward: I believe the tax should not be changed until after quarter 4 now. A sample size of at least 6 months will be more sufficient given the current tax structure as of April 19th.

5 Likes
8

I was against lowering the taxes because they are used for the stability and outreach of the project.

The DAO was powerful in their vote to lower the taxes. We now have to provide budgets on only 3% of taxes rather than 10%-5%.

Raising taxes again to 10%, just for 7% of it to go to token burns doesn’t sit right with me either. The team decided on 999,999,999,999 tokens. Why? IDK except buying tokens for less than $.01 seems to be a trend in crypto. But burning them won’t do diddly in the grand scheme of things.

I’d love to see 10% in taxes come back one day, but not in this manner.

2 Likes
9

I personally feel like it’s a good idea, considering the fact that we will potentially have a substantial amount of selling pressure in May. The previous sell tax modification should never have gone through, right before we have the first round of token unlocks… And I’m one of those vested token holders. I get it that it’s bad timing as we just had the reduction in sell tax, but in order to protect the majority of holders I think its a great mitigating proposal and healthy for the long term too. There was a reason why the devs made the original tax schedule higher in the weeks of the token unlocks and I support raising of the tax percentage once again for it. In terms of token burn I’m impartial to it.

4 Likes
10

This proposal is premature as the DAO has recently adjusted the taxes.

We all invested in K9 Finance because of their misson to bring Liquid Staking Derivative to Shibarium.

This mission has not been achieved, the Devs are building all the products and we will be able to test and report on bugs this quarter.

I’m looking forward to the launch of these products with great anticipation.

5 Likes
11

I am in favor of some type of burn mechanism but I don’t think a tax is the answer…

4 Likes
12

Burning tokens to try and appease FUD would be a shortsighted move IMO. The timing could suggest no real plan, due to the lower, then raise again? Getting the #BoneCrusher online and executing the timeline is what will drive adoption. If folks really believe in the project, they will HODL. Timeline execution/accountability is the ultimate trust builder in a DAO. My opinions of course.

6 Likes
13

Here is how k9 reaches 1 billion market cap. Keep 0% buy tax . Implement a 3.99% sell tax. 1.33 to k9 dao to run and pay team. The other 2.66% will be paid 1 and 2 years from buy date. 1.33% the following year. And 1.33% the year that. They are buying and selling future revenue. And when they sell at 3.99% tax. They will revieve 2.66 %(1.33%1st year ,2nd year 1.33%) back at the 1 year later price. The main idea if this is when you sell you will still get paid 2 times after each sale. On each anniversary you will relieve 1.33% at that date and price. Your selling the future and k9 dao will hold the 3.99% tax and use it as needed for daily dao needs and and also be used to pay the tax refund of 2.66% .starting in increment of 1.33% for 2 years. Minimum required sale of 1 million k9 to be qualified for 2.66% rebate. No one is selling the future esrning k9 dao will change defi forever if they adopted this future tax and rebate model.i could add to the proposel if needed

14

I strongly agree with some sort of burn but changing the tax again this soon probably isn’t the best fit in my opinion. I think it is something that should be thought and planned out but there’s no need to pull the trigger on it prematurely. Instead of a tax I think we can look at a percentage of the stake rewards or even burning a percentage of the unreleased. But I don’t know if doing it now is the answer… Not a very high percentage of the coins have been released right now and there is no product yet. Yes if you look at the fully diluted market cap it makes it look not so great but this project has a good team behind it and I’m sure there have been talks about some sort of ideas about it with them. They did put provisions in place up front about it being able to be burned so it has came up. I don’t think up and releasing every single coin all at once will happen.

1 Like
15

Premature as buy / sell tax were just modified. Hold off please.

3 Likes
16

Pushing for a tax increase so soon after a unanimous decision to lower it to 3% could hurt the project. Such rapid changes could lead to continuous proposals for tax adjustments, undermining the stability of the tax system. Burning tokens before the project fully develops its utility may not fulfill the immediate benefits retail holders expect. I’m open to hearing other viewpoints.

In my opinion, it would be wiser to let the market stabilize with the current tax structure before bringing up new changes. All can be revisited once the project hits its Q4 milestones, once more project developments are in place and there’s a clearer view of the token’s standing in the market.

We also have to consider the upcoming release of vested tokens from the initial backers who supported the project early on without benefiting from the initial launch spike. A 10% tax might seem more punitive than rewarding.

5 Likes
17

Increasing the Sell Tax Now implies that the community and the DAO cannot govern with INTEGRITY.

4 Likes
18

That pretty much sums it all up.

2 Likes
19

I think the general sentiment here is stated but I’ll just add here that we appreciate you, Funk! :slight_smile: Thank you for taking the time to write up this proposal!

5 Likes
20

I do love the idea of a burn. There is absolutely no doubt. Deflationary assets are what i truly look for. But it’s still too soon. Maybe to celebrate the closing of Q4 we celebrate by burning it would be appealing. But it feels too soon all together whether the tax is applied or not. Still like your thinking though.

2 Likes