There is urgent need to fund the Community Pool. This proposal is to get feedback on why we may need to use the OP to fund CP. Motivation
Binance, recently announced
a. A 50% reduction in burns.
b.The Burns should not be used to fund devs
If lunc price falls and volume falls, we may not be able to fund devs
Burning is significantly affected by 1.a
The hard-code 50/50 proposal will not burn the coins fast enough compared to 90/10
Solution to Funding DEvs:
It seems that the primary emphasis on this 50/50 proposal is to fund the CP. If that’s the case why not take a loan of $1M/$2M from the $65M Oracle pool? This will not affect the rewards to a great extent over the next few years as revealed by @ek826 in his article on the “diminishing rewards of the oracle pool” .The loan could be repaid with interest from the “10% income” gained from the 0.2%/1.2% tax, that is sent to the CP. If all of us believe in the future of LUNC , we should make certain that the CP is well funded so as to facilitate the non-stop funding of devs. This loan amount will also be staked and part of it used when required . The amount of rewards gained by staking will go back to the CP to help repay the loan. “This is like an arbitrage. From 0% rewards in OP to APY% rewards from Staking”
Validators and delegators might be liable to taxes in different countries in the world. They have KYC Verification on exchanges so you can’t even escape it. If you are loaning your stake, then you have to loan in a P2P method. Then your loan becomes a personal loan by default and not an institutional loan. That’s what exchanges do, which is why they are exempt from taxes that apply to traditional non-banking financial institutions/companies
I really like the idea since this ensures that the money that is being taken out is being taken out as a loan, and it will be returned at some of time in the future to the OP. This is a good solution for the problem we are facing with a perpetually diminishing CP. Validators should not have a problem with that
What Ed has mentioned to us earlier is that it requires significant code changes to enable the OP for transfers like these. That might be tricky. It wasn’t designed for this purpose. So Ed might be able to advise on that front. If it’s technically possible, then we have to look at Point 1 to make it financially feasible as well
You can give a loan if you have securities. If you deal with a bunch of people which have no legal ties to the organisation, not even clear who the group is on any given day and may disappear alltogether - you cannot give them a loan. You can give them money no worries but a loan?
Development is obviously funded for the next 3 months, we paid TR for whatever they will end up doing if they do and the Layer 1 team is now funded with a clear scope for 3 months.
3 months should be more than enough time to finally add the 4 million $$ value of the multi signatory wallet to the community pool as has been decided by the community.
I really do like the aspect you mention regarding staking to create a new kind of income for DEV. Just not with a loan. Put those 4 million $$ coming in into a staking fund and pay DEV from staking rewards.
The “loan” is not given to any organization. It will be sent to a “CP wallet” and air marked for funding the CP. Any use of it will need to pass community governance, This will put an end to the dependence on tax to fund the pool. We should have a contingency plan in the event that funds from taxation cannot fund developers. This available money in my opinion will also lure top developers to help build the L1 chain . It will also attract dApps developers to build on the chain. We should not be myopic in limiting the L1 team to just Ed’s team. The rebuilding of the chain may require additonal dev teams. Where will that money come from. Will we stall the chain because there is no fund?
It’s no longer $4M. It’s like $2M. With the apparent dissolution of TR with the community we may have another bottleneck. TR were approached by a legal team already, but these Mexicans were a shady bunch. We may find, that in the final analysis that the “$4M” is not legal.
An idea just came to my mind. Why cant the lunc retailers run a validator node “ask allnode to host it” This node will get rewards from OP to fund fund CP/burn and vote on governance proposals. The L1 team should be able to just allow votes from just retailers to vote on how the node will vote on governance proposals. The node will automatically vote based on the results. We would want the node to have a maximum 5% voting power. This should also act as guide to see what retailers really want?
I am tired of seeing validator owners voting for their own interest and not of the wishes of the retailerrs.
Developers should not dictate how we spend money from CP or OP. They should rather guide us by giving the available options the chain can offer.Let’s take back control of the chain from Developers. TR were “TRUSTED”.