I propose that we implement a 0.25% burn fee on K9 transactions. This may include purchasing, selling and include $KNINE utility transactions such as unstacking tokens fee. *(Utility transaction fee may take more programing from $KNINE TEAM this is a recommended section that may be optional depending on programing needs.) *
I would also recommend a maximum burn of 500 billion. Once the burn fee has exceeded 500 billion, the burn fee will be deactivated.
I recommend that we activate a burn wallet with a live tracking system to display in an optimum spot decided by the Dog round table and $KNINE team.
To fund the creation of this transaction fee program, wallet and tracking system I recommend we budget up too $5000.00. I have added a budget to make sure no work is taken from our current projects.
This Burn fee program is to be created during Q3 of 2024 and implemented in Q4 of 2024
There is to be no other burn fee or burn tax implemented during the time of this burn fee until it reaches / surpasses the 500 billion mark and has deactivated.
This burn fee may be reviewed in Q2 and Q4 of each year to request alteration by the DAO if a proposal is submitted properly. With a stipulation that the burn fee may not exceed 1%.
Effect of proposal
Reducing the fully diluted supply of $KNINE
Increases holder’s share %
Continues to add to the yearly burn to make $KNINE a deflationary token
I’d suggest we let the core dev team cook on their current priorities (Bone Crusher). We need to get the product live without distractions that can cause delays.
Understanding that the token launched with 1T-1 was the idea of the founder and there was no burn mechanism created for launch should tell the DAO that there were no plans to make KNINE deflationary. There must be a reason for that.
Also understand that as K9 Finance expands, it will do so on other chains. The higher the cost to get in, the lower the adoption. People love being able to buy millions of tokens at one time compared to thousands or hundreds at a time. It’s just a psychological thing.
I find it interesting that people are against taxes, but we keep getting proposal after proposal about burning. That in itself is a tax, people. Burning doesn’t do much of anything for a project.
The only tax/burn proposal I’ll agree to is one that puts back into place the original tax plan in the litepaper. Everything else is noise and a distraction, IMO.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. It’s clear that maintaining focus on our core priorities is crucial for getting the product live without unnecessary delays. Understanding the founder’s original vision for KNINE and the strategic reasons behind not implementing a burn mechanism at launch helps provide clarity for the DAO.
Your points on token accessibility and the psychological impact of being able to buy large quantities make a lot of sense, especially as K9 Finance expands to other chains.
I appreciate your perspective on tax and burn proposals. It’s important to align with the original tax plan in the litepaper to stay true to our foundational strategy. Let’s continue to focus on what’s best for the project’s growth and sustainability.
I believe that any burns with the K9 token should be strictly voluntary, and put into a vote instead of it becoming a bit of a piecemeal; an “excise tax” simply for transacting with K9.
This will only hurt the K9 tokenomics.
we already have a tax rate for the coin, adding another tax on top will only bring about bad publicity.
I feel adding a tax may not be on our best interest… We currently have a 3% sell tax… The proposal is for .25 % burn tax or mechanism…Taking that from the current sale tax I don’t see as derogatory towards the treasury at all…Q4 or Q1 could be the best timing as well…
I am STRONGLY against any burning of k9 coins on a regular basis. Outside of 1 time burns such as the recent one to honor the iconic tribute. Unlike meme coins with no to little utility, K9 is a huge real player in the game of defi. The utility that we will bring to the table is unimaginable.
I keep seeing other people wanting a burn fee but they want to do a huge %. So to satisfy those requesting a burn fee and to those who don’t want a burn fee. I decided it was best to propose a small burn fee that compromised in the middle. I also thought the burn fee should have a stoping point. So I added in a max burn to maintain a solid foundation for K9.
I knew that someone had to take time to create the programming also. So I added a budget that would allow K9 to have the ability to pay someone to complete the programming. Hopefully allowing the main team to stay focused on the Roadmap projects.
I also thought it to be best to postpone the activation until Q4 to give our team time to program it and to allow testing of the Road map to be completed in Q3.