Mir community fund burn

The post of 5% community fund burn has me confused on yes or no. Personally i would rather the fund used for correct marketing and improvements of the protocol but no one can ever agree to the type of marketing that can occur and at the same time if they’re never spent even slightly i don’t like how there is 50+ million tokens sitting.

I will vote yes on this poll just to see the outcome and hope further use cases come out of the fund instead of just burning. Mirror needs some marketing or even farming pools for some assets to get the name out. There should be for example some of the funds used to create 2-3 farm pools on pancakeswap and sushiswap just to get the mirror protocol out there.

I am considering making a poll to use some of the community funds to create a MIR/BUSD farming reward pool on pancakeswap and a MIR/USDC farming pool on sushiswap

Thoughts guys?

I would encourage you to make just a poll in the future. You seem to be correct that people never seem to agree on anything so nothing gets passed.This burn proposed seems so small and is why I will also vote yes.I have never seen the community agree to do anything with the fund so I am doubtful the proposal passes.If it does then I would encourage you to make a proposal for a rewards pool as I think we definitely could use one.We have lots of ideas on this forum but most do not make it to a vote unfortunately.

Thing that concerns me is… is that really a burn address? Looks like a normal adress to me… terra19atntvpx0q0u7zmjsalkde87dks2gdavjpnu63

How can we be sure it’s not a clever scam?

3 Likes

After someone pointed out the ability the other day I started looking at the host of the proposals looked a bit ago and see this same proposal is posted by the host of several proposals lately and his address is a whale. I would think someone who makes so many proposals and has a large wallet is vested in the community but that is mere speculation and comfort for me.

1 Like

Doesn’t provide much confort, could be a whale looking to dump the tokens on the market, I’d rather see some unbias confirmation that the address is actually a burn address

2 Likes

The people who wrote the whitepaper and made the tokenomics model are really smart and know way more about how to make the protocol work than I do, but I’ll vote YES because I love a token burn!

This is NOT an official burn address!

I will VOTE NO for this as the address is not an official TFL burn address. This could easily be someone trying to scam the community fund of MIR and people are just voting yes for another proposal “that sounds like a good idea” :man_facepalming:

5 Likes

This is NOT A BURN ADDRESS!!

3 Likes

If we are being objective none of us can say if it is a burn address or not. A burn address at the most simplest definition is an address unrecoverable. If the key was tossed it could be a burn address. While I fully disagree with the manner it was handled and proposed none of us can say definitely it is not a burn address.

Respectfully, the only valid burn address is an address that CANNOT contain coins and transact with Terraswap for instance.

An example is the address in the Burn the Remainder of the SDT Stability Reserve - Stability - Terra Research Forum proposal, the burn address of which is properly constructed and WILL NOT contain coins even after you send them there: terra1sk06e3dyexuq4shw77y3dsv480xv42mq73anxu

2.75 million $MIR is a lot of sales pressure for the community, with the assertion that whoever created this address didn’t retain the keys. HARD NO.

4 Likes

It is not an official burn address, and that is all that should matter. Calling an unofficial burn address a “burn address” sure seems kind of silly to me. :man_shrugging: lol

6 Likes

It’s absolutely not a burn address

3 Likes

Nobody can say I’m not a Nigerian prince…

2 Likes

I am glad we agree because that is 100% fact and no one here can argue with that.

I am surprised we are not addressing poll 178. By most logic here that is a scam as well.

Hardly a scam, but rather a misunderstanding from the creator of how deposits work, he’s getting paid 100 MIR for risking his own 100 MIR, not a big deal

1 Like

I must have been the only person here to take Logic in University because there is so much speculation here.

As with poll 178 that could be the case. The person could be mistaken or could very well be capitalizing on the event for profit and people’s ignorance on how the polls operate. We do not know an individuals intent. The same goes for the original poll in question. It is clearly concerning but again I do not, and no one here can say with any specificity what the person’s intent was.
In the real world, at least in my country, tossing the accusation scam around unfounded can open you to liability.

My entire point has never been the argument it has been the constant mere speculation that occurs here and baffles me.

Even your response makes speculation on one poll and then takes your speculation to the opposite decisional process for the other poll when in reality we know nothing more then both of these proposals were done incorrectly leading to community confusion and fear.

This is pretty basic. If someone proposes to burn tokens, and does not use an official burn address, then either:

  1. They have no idea what they’re doing and shouldn’t be making such a proposal in the first place.
  2. They’re acting in bad faith.

In either case, whether by accident or intentionally, they misrepresented what they were doing because they did not provide an official burn address.

What do you propose? That we simply trust every poll that comes along proposing to burn tokens with an unofficial burn address?

Simple “logic.”

4 Likes

Finally we agree completely on your statement; however, everyone else seems to jump to conclusion #2 and ignore the possibility of #1. There are plenty of people who come to these forums and discord and ask the most elementary questions that make you wonder how they even function in the crypto space. So for purposes of logic you do exactly what you just did and see there are different possible scenarios and either one could be the case. The ending result for us is the same but the path we take to get there is different meaning I do not run around screaming “scam…scam…scam” when I do not know and the factual evidence does not permit such a conclusion (hypothesis yes but conclusion no) and people “could” be right it is a scam but it very well could equally be incompetence or ignorance.
Like I said end result in mitigation is same.

Wether on purpose or by mistake, it was not in question, the intent was to warn the community that was blindly voting in something that looked like a scam, and in this space, if it looks like a scam then there’s an high likely hood of it being a scam.

It was an harmful proposal on the verge of passing, your virtue signalling helps no one, no one was personally accused, it’s a wallet address not a person, if feelings were hurt then perhaps that wallet’s owner will learn to launch a proposal on the forum before going for governance.

1 Like

I would also add that based on that wallets previous proposals to modify the weight of BTC and DOT, they do not appear to be some ignorant newb in the space and it was most likely a scam.

I am not sure how anyone with such knowledge of the space to create proposals to modify the weight of assets could create an address, call it a burn address, and claim ignorance of official burn addresses, considering the former requires more advanced knowledge of the crypto space than the latter.

1 Like