Funding to incentivise Devs, the backbone of this community

Governance & Proposals
1

Funding to Incentivise Devs (Proposal)
LUNC, as it is now, would not have been reborn without the persistence and effort of the founding Terra Rebel devs and supporting members.

Although there have been a lot of discussions on incentivising devs who are continuing to contribute on a voluntary basis, to my knowledge, there have not been any concrete proposals to make this happen.

We do not have a dev pool to cover:

  • Dev Infrastructure
  • Infrastructure for ecosystem dApps in an emergency case (if TFL is unable to)
  • Incentivise dev (will leave to TR to plan the details on this)
  • Fund new projects/utility on the chain (on community approval)

This proposal seeks to:

  • Enable the funding by setting the minimum validator commission to 1% and channelling the funds
  • Use the community pool wallet to store the funds

Why 1% of validator commission?

  • The validator commission is derived from the staking rewards of delegators. So the commission, in essence, allows both delegators and validators to contribute.
  • 1% could be the starting point and adjusted as required.

Why the community pool?
The community pool is already embedded with the governance system. So any withdrawal of funds can be enacted using the existing governance system with majority community votes.

Please correct me if any of the information provided here is inaccurate or if there are other plans already underway to tackle this. The proposal is planned to be created on Terra Station on the 1st of October 2022 based on the feedback.

10 Likes
2

This is essential and I strongly support it.

Commission → Community Pool → Request of funds by the devs → Community vote on it to grant the request or not.

If there is no incentive to build, it all goes to zero.

3 Likes
3

Im all for a funding bag for devs. Im not sure if the mechanism proposed is correct, maybe someone else can weigh in on this. As far as i understand validator fees should end up in validators pocket. For devs should be a separate % knocked off each transaction?

3 Likes
4

@Discovery Thank you for the proposal. This is definitely necessary and the motivation/reasoning makes a lot of sense. The only thing I would suggest you change is the mechanism by which you fund the community pool. Taking 1% of validator commissions is something that would take a chain upgrade. If you were to instead change the reward weight of the tax, you could fund the community pool by a percentage of seigniorage (amount burned) every epoch of the system.

6 Likes
5

Yep, funding for devs is essential, but it shouldn’t come from the validator commission, please come up with a more suitable mechanism. Thank you for the proposal.

2 Likes
7

Maybe community can fund this? Devs can give us lunc address so we can donate?

3 Likes
9

Thank you for providing valuable feedback. To summarize:

  • so all are in agreement regarding the need of this funding and happy to use the community pool wallet
  • some disagreement on the method of funding and as @ek826 pointed out the method proposed could be difficult to achieve at this point

This is what I understood to be the alternative suggestion:
Of the 1.2% tax we currently have in place, say 0.1% goes to the community pool for this purpose?

Is my understanding accurate and what is everyones thought on that?

One thing I would comment is, if we are to have a long sustainable growth, we need be able to fund the innovation and effort as a community.

2 Likes
10

I strongly agree with this proposal. Even i am new with how the blockchain work. But i think, the devs team already gave the community a very huge dedication. Now, it’s time for us to support them back and also the fund can help to recover LUNC ecosystem in the future which is a very important thing to let us revival LUNC.

1 Like
11

We should actualy set a 2% as minimum fee go to burn from validator commission, it would speed up the burn and fund the community pools faster that way. If most of the validator stay at around 5%, it make:

The community pools growth faster

The burn will speed up which make staker participate a little more to the burn even if they hold for the long run.

And make it fair between validator, some may choose to burn even more while some others will have their profit meet.

By growing the community pool faster, dev can pay themself and feed incentive toward new project to bring a better use to the blockchain.

IBC renabling should be done soon as it will help to bring life to the blockchain, pershap conclude some deal with evmos, rebus etc…

Or we can apply a minimum of fee to all validator, from that point they pick the right of what to do with their commission, put some toward burn or profit, this will help to keep the blockchain decentralised so we doesnt get the SEC coming at us coz most of the %% validator are in the USA and make it more fair between each validator.

1 Like
12

A good proposal and ideally implemented following approach suggested by @ek826

1 Like
13

A simpler option would meet two aims.
A lot of people including some of the devs want to get rid of the other non-US stablecoins.
How about removing all of them from the Oracle pool, swapping them for USTC and using those funds to pay the devs?
I believe just over 800 million remain at this time, that is still millions of dollars at current USTC value and the value is likely to rise over time(and incentivize USTC repegging)and all this talk about higher taxes even on validators will end. Those stablecoins have higher value than the community pool and unlike many of the proposals made so far which will take time to accumulate enough coins of reasonable value, are readily available, while ridding us of those other stablecoins that people will swap for USTC anyway

1 Like
14

Please also consider to support new Projects and of course older ones too, tax being not good for them so far!

1 Like
15

Funding to Incentivise Devs (Proposal) (Updated based on feedback)
LUNC, as it is now, would not have been reborn without the persistence and effort of the founding Terra Rebel devs and supporting members.

Although there have been a lot of discussions on incentivising devs who are continuing to contribute on a voluntary basis, to my knowledge, there have not been any concrete proposals to make this happen.

We do not have a dev pool to cover:

  • Dev Infrastructure
  • Infrastructure for ecosystem dApps in an emergency case (if TFL is unable to)
  • Incentivise devs (will leave to TR to plan the details on this)
  • Fund new projects/utility on the chain (on community approval)

This proposal seeks to:

  • Enable the funding by setting the minimum validator commission to 1% and channelling the funds
  • Enable the funding by changing the reward weight of tax and channel 0.2% to the community pool
  • Use the community pool wallet to store the funds

Why 1% of validator commission?

  • The validator commission is derived from the staking rewards of delegators. So the commission, in essence, allows both delegators and validators to contribute.
  • 1% could be the starting point and adjusted as required.

Why 0.2% from the current tax implementation?

  • The whole community will be able to contribute by simply using the blockchain
  • This method requires less effort compared to the previously suggested option
  • Rough calculation shows this is ~120M to ~200M LUNC per month based on on-chain usage levels

Why the community pool?
The community pool is already embedded with the governance system. So any withdrawal of funds can be enacted using the existing governance system with majority community votes.

Please correct me if any of the information provided here is inaccurate or if there are other plans already underway to tackle this. The proposal is planned to be created on Terra Station on the 1st of October 2022 based on the feedback.

2 Likes
16

Proposal #5113 is now available to vote.

1 Like
18

Yesterday and today about 255 million lunc were burned from a 1.2% tax.

You are suggesting sending to the community pool 0.2% of the tax which is equivalent to 16.6% which is 44,880 million per day which would give 1,346,400 billion per month which would give 403,920 thousand dollars at the current price.

That 0.2% wasn’t calculated right it just seems like a random number.

Not to mention that this is not the time to discuss this, there are already discussions to reduce taxes, to encourage greater on-chain volume

This discussion would already include a percentage for the community pool.

I’m not against paying developers, or raising funds to finance projects, but this discussion has to be broader, not just in 3 days.

I suggest that this discussion wait at least 1 month from the 1.2% tax, to collect enough data for further analysis of the correct amount of the burn rate and the appropriate percentage for community pool funding.

I wonder what @wrapped_dday and @Vegas and @ek826 and @413x_45h4w and @Akujiro and @StrathCole think about it?

3 Likes
19

Thanks for your feedback @xXx.

Happy to be corrected by ones who know exactly how the percentage will be derived from below:

{
  "subspace": "treasury",
  "key": "TaxPolicy",
  "value": "{\"rate_min\": \"0.012\", \"rate_max\": \"0.012\", \"cap\":{\"denom\": \"usdr\", \"amount\": \"60000000000000000\" }, \"change_rate_max\": \"0.0\"}"
}
{
  "subspace": "treasury",
  "key": "RewardPolicy",
  "value": "{\"rate_min\": \"1.0\", \"rate_max\": \"1.0\", \"cap\":{\"denom\": \"unused\", \"amount\": \"0\" }, \"change_rate_max\": \"0.0\"}"
}
1 Like
20

May i know who from the rebels is proposing this?.

Everyone appreciates undeniably what the rebels are doing for the community and would love to support them generously.

This, however is a dangerous path to initiate at this early implementation of the tax and should rather be setup differently e.g. like opening up a denotion wallet and i am sure everyone would wholeheartedly contribute much more than from this proposal. Happy to denote all my rewards.

Not to mention that the Rebels are now indirectly being supported via their validators.

It is too early and too dangerous to put up this proposal while this thing hasn’t started off yet. Just recall the amount of effort put into getting Binance on-board to implement the tax. Don’t give CEX or other a chance to FUD.

Let’s focus the listing of LUNC in Coinbase, Robinhood etc…! PLEASE, retract this proposal.

RebelAbdoel.

1 Like
21

I strongly support the “there’s no free lunch” thesis behind this proposal, but I’d add that non-TR people like astro_martian, StrathCole, and myself have invested enormous proof of work in the recovery effort, too.

22

Bad idea

23

Thanks for the response Abdoelz. Hope below clarifies the questions raised.

This proposal is not associated with TR and neither am I affiliated with TR in any way.

We all appreciate the work the TR volunteers are doing. As a community member, it was concerning to find out about the unnecessary funding stress the senior TR members were facing to host infrastructure etc. To add to this, we have a high risk of TLF losing their ability to host the ecosystem apps prompting me to initiate this proposal.

This proposal does not give TR or any parties direct access to the funds. It only enables the funding/community treasury which on a case-by-case governance approval basis can be granted for a purpose.

I can understand your concern regarding CEXs. The question is would they mind a seigniorage fee included in the burn tax which goes to the LUNC community treasury to support the blockchain? They all know LUNC is a unique community-driven project now being built back up from nothing.

1 Like