Token buyback and burn will come as part of the marketing fee, this will be community driven by way of consensus to determine the details of token buyback and burn. Due to limited supply of the token it's impractical to include a constant burning in the protocol, instead the team and community will drive the burning event.
MLOKY is a second token within LunaChow ecosystem and you can see the whitepaper on our website
https://lunachow.com. LunaChow ecosystem currently has 2 tokens - LUCHOW & MLOKY, and we have NFT Marketplace live, more features is under development that'll create more use case for both tokens in our ecosystem.
So your community will need to actively vote to determine the amount of the token burned instead of having an assurance that certain amount of token gained from fixed percentage of fee is gping to buyback and burn? What'll happen if your community vote the entire marketing budget to be used for buyback?
This will never happen as the token buyback & burn is an occasional events that'll be announced in the community by the team on the amount schedule for burn etc, The community can vote yes or no and also gives opinion. We have done similar community consensus many times in the past, as you may know, MLOKY is not our first token, so we got a hang of this already.
We have a limited token already, doing a fixed burn is impractical as there'll be a point where token burn will be too excessive or too expensive, so occasional burn is very practical. And focusing on burn alone is not really the most important feature of a token, it's just there mostly as an additional feature and that can be triggered manually occasionally.
So the burning program is not exactly "community driven" as team dictate when and how much is burned, your community can only gives a yes and a no, but nothing exactly specific?
And yes, I am well aware that this is not your first token, as you've repeatedly said --kinda hard to not notice, after the second time you informed us-- but that is exactly where the concern stemmed from, because, one, the other project is not exacatly... popular, and now --two-- you said that you have enough experience on the similar consensus --namely community driven burning-- while your previous project only have one burning and that happened on the eariest phase of the project and was planned from an even longer time, so I highly doubt that the burning is te result of your community-driven decision. And yes, I am also aware that you ave another buyback-and-burn feature on that token, but I an also see that there are no toher burning happened since, given the total amount sent to the burning address is the exact amount of the initial burn --99.9% of the total supply.
https://i.ibb.co/ZfXpWgj/Luchow-DEAD.jpgFirst, you are mentioning LUCHOW which has a different initial burn structure from the MLOKY, not sure how you draw the conclusion of similarity here, second you have no idea of everything about LUCHOW, as this token is on 7 blockchain, about 15 DEXs and CEXs total and some minor burn is happening on other blockchain, and that token has no team allocation, It has a token buyback solely funded by the team. Liquidity provision and marketing has been solely team funded, since there's no token allocation like other project do. Please always read and research before you draw conclusion.
Also, this post is about MLOKY and how it's structured, not sure what the issue is about burning a token that's already low supply, and you're referring to the community saying to use all marketing fee to buy back and burn. I think you are choosing an aspect of a this token and decided to create a FUD with it. This would be the last time I'll entertain your post as it's becoming clear that you're trying to create a FUD. The team is there to guide the community in the decision of the token buyback and burn, so as to prevent a disastrous and irrational decision that can arise due to human nature from time to time. Community driven is based on some consensus and feedback on the direction. For the most part the team work in the direction of as the community suggests in as much as the path seems beneficial to the ecosystem.
