New Economic Policy for Terra Classic: Set of 4 Proposals to Align Incentives

[dfunk]

@Tynos

Any single smart contract will be whitelisted automatically or there will be a supervising “committee” to approve certain projects based on specific criteria?

The 130 validators are all the supervising committee that we need. Whitelisting of dapps can be done via governance proposals the same way Binance whitelisting was done.

@Tynos

I was hoping additional volume to be burned via smart contracts.

If smart contract volume does improve in the future then we can always review the economic policies then. Currently smart contract volumes aren’t impressive.

@Tynos

So far all 4 proposals are a good compromise and I hope will pass.

@Clan

Here you say that 97% of onchain volume is from staking, which is white listed.

Yes, staking is whitelisted indeed (on-chain) but there are many clients (wallets, etc) who are still including burn tax in their transaction fee. Take a look here for instance: Terra Finder

How do you explain 3,000,006.870568 Lunc transaction fee on a MsgDelegate (Staking) transaction? If you study the blocks carefully you will find multiple clients implement burn tax on staking.

@Clan

Here you’re saying 97% of on chain volume is from messagesend functions.

So which is it?

You can review the complete discussion and analysis here: [Proposal] Exclude Smart Contraction Transactions from the scope of Burn Tax

Posting a tiny excerpt from that link here:

@dfunk

In a nutshull,

• ~97% of the burn tax comes from Send Transactions (MsgSend, MsgMultiSend, MsgSwapSend) - particularly MsgSend transactions,
• while only ~3% of the burn tax comes from Contract Executions (MsgExecuteContract, MsgExecute, MsgInstantiateContract) - particularly MsgExecuteContract transactions.

Burn tax on smart contract transactions does more harm than good as it drives away dapps and on-chain utility due to the additional fees and code complexity, while adding very little to the burn amount.