I agree with an 80/20% split of the tax antehandler. I had a prop up for a 75/25% split for more CP funding which did not pass or even make quorum. A 50/50% is an aggressive move which would drop our burns significantly.
An 80/20% split would double our funding rate from the tax, for only a 11% loss of burns. Quite a good compromise to achieve an increased CP funding rate but barely impacting the tax. That’s the split I support at this time. If this proceeds to vote on a 50/50 I will carefully consider it.
The other idea not mentioned by the proposer, to increase gas fees again is something I agree with, but is not part of this proposal, I would go 2x on that as 5x would bring it to 150 to 300 per transaction which is quite high as I don’t want to discourage stakers who have smaller holdings, as currently to withdraw rewards you get 60 LUNC gas fee, going to 300 is too much IMO. There’s also issue of auto-compounding being hurt by such an increase. Gas fees of 50 to 120 are suitable which would be from a 2x of our current fees. This plus an 80/20% split would see a significant funding increase to the chain.
Of course I support raising the burn tax which would do that also, but that’s not part of this proposal.
I agree an adjustment to the antehandler is needed however I favour a slight adjustment, and even a slight one can 2x our funding rate from the tax, so IMO better to start smaller on this. Thank you for the proposal Matt.
50/50 split and dapps can request security audits paid from CP which will give their dapp some kind of recognition as well, be it focused marketing or just a link from the Station ecosystem or something of that nature.
I’m all about burning but, bringing more dapps will help the burns possibly more then the .2 tax does.
I’m also, as of recent, more into the whole security aspect. Somehow we have to incentivize dapps to wait until audits are completed before going live.
These are my thoughts, not yours. Do what you will with them. I just want my 5 to 10 year plan to look brighter.
In practice, what will most probably happen is TGF and its ghouls will find creative ways to stick their grubby claws in there and grift more money from the community. All we’d be doing with a 50/50 split is putting more cookies in the jar for them to steal right under our noses.
If the chain was healthy and we had competent leadership then this change would be a no-brainer.
But that’s not currently the case, so IMHO it’s best to starve the TGF beast as much as possible.
Unless TGF is out of the picture first, no way im gonna support that. This will simply allow them to siphon more funds out of the CP. With allnodes vote they can do whatever they want basically.
We are going to see a lot of spend proposals in the near and midterm future. Some of them likely to pass. Terra Rebels want to maintain backup infra - which is great. Bilbo Baggins wants a second L1 team to focus on the alliance module - which is absolutely exciting. Where are the funds going to come from? So I don’t see any way around it. I am in support of this.
The significant price increase resulted in a 1.2% tax instead of the 90 to 10 ratio. Then the tax was reduced to 0.2% and the price started to fall. Why are you lying?
My r.u.g detector is going off the charts.
The current L1 team is doing minimal to none work and you’re thinking that throwing MORE money at them is the best thing we can do?
RugDetector votes NO WITH VETO
Seigniorage was deprecated, the tax split occurs before being sent to the burn wallet. In other terms, it doesn’t interfere with voluntary burns. Don’t spread false rumors to create FUD please
Yes but they have made us whitelist their addresses. They are not happy with funding the CP. They will only burn. They have made that clear to Ed and others last time.
