Meta Encrypt Institute

The announcement of a 1.6 trillion $LUNC

(Terra Luna Classic) burn has significant implications, but several factors must be considered to assess its impact accurately:
1. Current Supply Context:
- LUNC's circulating supply is approximately 6.5 trillion tokens. A 1.6T burn would reduce this by ~24.6%, bringing supply down to ~4.9T. This is a substantial reduction, potentially increasing scarcity if demand persists.
2. Burn Mechanism:
- Transaction Tax: The Terra Classic community implemented a 0.5% tax on transactions, with a portion burned. This burn might be cumulative from this tax, though 1.6T seems large for short-term accumulation.
- Exchange Participation: Exchanges like Binance have periodically burned LUNC from trading fees. A coordinated effort by multiple exchanges could contribute to this figure.
- Proposal or Initiative: Verify if this is a one-time event (e.g., a whale burning holdings) or part of a broader proposal (e.g., increased burn tax).
3. Confirmation and Source:
- Check if the burn is confirmed by official channels (Terra Classic governance, trusted exchanges) or if it’s a speculative proposal. Community votes often govern major burns.
4. Market Sentiment:
- Historical Context: LUNC’s 2022 collapse and subsequent fork left skepticism. Burns may improve sentiment, but long-term viability depends on ecosystem rebuilding.
- Price Impact: While reduced supply can be bullish, macroeconomic factors and crypto market trends heavily influence price. Immediate pumps may be followed by volatility.
5. Long-Term Viability:
- Even post-burn, LUNC’s supply remains high compared to major cryptocurrencies. Sustained burns and utility (e.g., dApp growth) are needed for lasting impact.
Conclusion: A 1.6T LUNC burn could boost short-term price action and signal community commitment to recovery. However, its effectiveness hinges on execution (e.g., speed, transparency) and broader adoption. Investors should monitor official announcements and market trends while remaining cautious of hype in a historically volatile asset.
#shareyourthought #Binance #squarecommunity

I began my career as a technical analyst on Wall Street in October of 1964 working for the brokerage house F.I. Dupont & Co.
The job itself was as a posting clerk in the technical Research
Department, and my duties included updating a 4000 Point and
Figure chart library every morning before the opening bell.
Every chart was to be ready before the opening and done neatly
in pencil. It was about as far down on the Wall Street food chain
as you could go in those days, but at least it got me into the
game. Make no mistake about it, being given that opportunity
by my friend and mentor, John D. Greeley, has made me very
grateful to this day. I was able to land a job in lower Manhattan simply because the daily trading volume on the New York
Stock Exchange had expanded all the way up to the breakneck
level of 5 million shares a day. The Street was having a hard
time keeping up with the increase in activity, so hiring new
blood was the order of the day. It was an era of new trends in
business and in our social lives. Innovation in technology was
touching every single area.
This atmosphere was a result of a very healthy economy,
low interest rates, low inflation, and a recent military success,
a la the Cuban missle crisis. It was hard to argue with success,
for the United States was running on all cylinders. The rate of
unemployment would drop in the 1960s from 7 percent in 1959