Funding to incentivise Devs, the backbone of this community

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.

I see that OP changed his original proposal from 1% of validator commissions (which is sustainable and a very small sum for them) to 1/6th of the tax revenues. I don’t support the tax and don’t think it’s sustainable so I can’t support the modified proposal. I think 1% of the current validator rewards pool would be way too low to incentivize much of anything but I like the basic idea.

Devs basically work for the validators, who in turn act as the parliament of the whole network, so it makes sense for the validators to own (and manage) the responsibility for compensating the individual contributors of the collective network, and it should come from the validator rewards pool which is a direct function of ongoing economic activity on the network.

Thank you Discovery for your prompt response.

I think it is still a bad idea to propose for a tax change in this early stage. Binance has not even conducted the first major burn and we are jumping the gun to propose changes. Let’s attract new cex’s, build trust…then

While I understand the need to upkeep the ecosystem, please note everyone is watching. This proposal has the potential to create more FUD and distrust.

If i am not mistaken, Ed has initiated a burn 10$ of LUNC and the community is supporting this initiative. Donation options can be opened to finance TR till next tax review.

Let’s now focus on the burn and re-evaluate the effect after 3 to 6 months whichever is deemed necessary.

Thanks,

Abdoelz

1 Like

100% all for this

I would encourage all to read this well written article by Dr Kim especially the “Rebuild Independence” section - Burn and Rebuild Luna Classic. On September 15th, Terra Classic… | by Edward Kim | Sep, 2022 | Medium . Thanks again for everyones time, feedback and votes.

Lets do this. We dont need a perfect solution, but an instant solution to keep the talented dev team onboard long term. Also 1.2 tax will not be repealed any time soon as some tax deniers suggest. Its here to stay. 0.2% should allow us to quickly build a dev pool. In case this is too high - we may always reduce it at further time.

In my opionion the percentage should be 5% of the 1.2% which 0.06 percent on every transaction. And we dont have to send to community pool cuz like that every time we have to vote again. The TR just set up a multisig wallet and we can send there.

When has giving anyone money ever solved the problem? Look at the US government and how well that’s going? If you “hire devs” you’re going to get people looking for a cash grab. Anyone can develop a shit utility to run on a platform. Nothing that ever can “free” was easy. If people want to invest their own time and money, you are more likely to produce a product worthwhile.

@ek826 Would you be able to help this proposal to evolve into the next level? I see this one looks a bit like failing the voting process - but if it does please do not take it as discouragement. The community will carry the right proposal and understands that funding devs is not giving away money but making sure we will get rich.

1 Like

The function handling the 1.2% is an exception in the tax module. What you are asking is to expand further this emergency hack.

The functionality you are after can be handled using the existing chain distribution module (https://lcd.terra.dev/distribution/parameters) with the aid of a contract that facilitates the regular airdrop to a DEV/DAPPS pool, once a DEV POOL has been allocated and a method to its’ access/control has been agreed.

Refer here to get an idea how the distribution module works, and here for a sample of a distribution contract.

I hope this helps.

If you pay peanuts… you get monkeys.

Thanks for sharing this info @godoal. The distribution contract sample is handy too, but probably out of scope for this proposal.

As I understand, with the parameter proposal (#4080) link you shared, we started directing 50% of the transaction fees to the community pool as of July 2022. Is this method flexible enough to meet, say, ~200M LUNC per month? Below is how it worked for July + Aug with 50% - ~4.5M:


From the comments, the tax parameters seem to have provisions to achieve this without any code change too.

It creates a stick-and-carrot situation where devs are incentivized to bring in “transactions” (utility) so the payout is bigger.

The CP increased from 20M to 300M since the tax burn was activated in a matter of days; unfortunately, the graph output is skewed by the tax burn leakage into the CP so we don’t have an accurate model of how that parameter change alone pumps the CP for funding purposes. Also, doesn’t help that the volume dropped drastically due to probably broken dApps since the tax implementation.

Maybe we could use the external funding/Donation method put in place by TR for the time being and give the system some time to normalize now that the tax leak fix is in place is the way to go. If this method proves to be suitable we can then change the distribution parameters to something more appropriate for the Core Dev/dApp Dev communities’ funding…

P.S. We could use the meantime to figure out the details of the DEV POOL allocation and the method to its’ access/control (i.e. How new devs are added, who decides, how are they removed, how are dApps whitelisted, who decides etc…). It’s a piece of work that will have to happen in advance anyway, whichever option we choose to follow.

A few others suggesting posting a terra address and take donations. I like this idea, because I can see where my donation is going. I’m cautious and will vote NO for automated drops into a pool. Many of us got burnt from the last administration. Once bitten twice shy. I work in development, so can’t say I don’t eat my own dog food.

Maybe add a swap-to-DEV pool option and swap-to-burn option in the station…

1 Like

Few points to remind:

  • This is only a text proposal and won’t enable anything in itself.
  • If there is support, I assume the devs will submit a future parameter proposal with exact parameter changes required to meet treasury fund goals (~ 200M LUNC/month).
  • All funds we built up in the community pool will be owned by the community and any access will require Community pool spend proposals with all governance controls such as agora discussion, deposit requirements, voting etc…:

I’m all for it! The developers deserve this for sure no doubt ! Love it ! I’m a software engineer myself , hard work, is worth more than meets the eye. (Behind the scenes) much to come for $lunc , thanks to these wonderful developers. THANK YOUR DEV’S !

1 Like

I think it is important to note that these funds will go into the community pool and therefore be community owned through governance.

It will not be free service money for the devs and, as stated in the post, will be used for many goals that benefit the ecosystem.

It’s even possible to burn a part of this amount later on if it would happen to be too big.

IMO Terra Classic is in dire need of an actual self-sustainable ecosystem more than anything else and this is one of the few way to work toward that goal.

3 Likes

Stabilizing the supply and equalizing governance power are other top important ways to achieve that sustainability…

Here’s one direction to stabilize & equalize the core of Terra Classic:

Great proposal! For me it’s too late. I feel PR 5234 will be the nail in the coffin here.

Extra burning (to 10 billion) and development funding would never hurt… And, an official (Terra Stationed) burn/development donation option is best so people know their lunc is going where they want it to go.