This is a parameter change proposal to adjust the tax AnteHandler from 90/10% split (90% burn / 10% community pool) to 75/25% split (75% burn / 25% community pool).
Justification:
The funding rate of 10% of the 0.2% tax is only 0.02% to the community pool which is not sufficient. We need a higher rate. Gas fees alone only produce about 210M LUNC total per month (USTC included). We need 300M per month alone for basic funding of the L1 team.
For example, our tax before the 90/10 split which came with v1.1.0, was 100% burn which was on average about 40 million per day.
With the 90/10% we are getting about 4M to the CP and 36M burn per day. 4M over a month is 120M per month to the CP. This totals about 330M per month of funding with gas fees also. This is barely above what we need to fund the L1 team on a continual basis (300M per month), so is not sufficient.
With a 75/25% split, of a on-chain tax volume of 40 million, we would be getting 10M to CP and 30M burn per day. This 10M over a month is 300M to the CP (instead of 120M), a 2.5x increase in funding.
This gives a total of around 510M per month (including gas fees, or 6.12B per year), giving 210M per month (2.52B per year) in additional funding over our prior L1 funding rate (300M per month or 900M per 3 months). This new split gives us more options with extra funding to help the chain.
The volume varies on any particular day, but this is an example of the current split versus the proposed split.
A 75/25% split of our current tax of 0.2% gives us 0.05% community pool and 0.15% burn. This is 1/4 community pool and 3/4 burn. This gives good 2.5x increase in funding from the tax to the community pool, but respects the burn by not reducing it below 3/4.
A 75/25% split is scalable into the future if the community ever approves a tax increase. For example a 0.4% tax (0.1% CP / 0.3% burn), a 0.6% tax (0.15% CP / 0.45% burn), 0.8% tax (0.2% CP / 0.60% burn) etc.
So 2.5x increase in our current funding rate from the tax for a 25% reduction in our on-chain burns. I think it’s a good compromise to get a higher funding rate which we need to fund our chain, but still respects the burn with 3/4 of the on-chain tax.
We have community funding needs such as for the L1 team, any additional members or funding they need, any L2 team or projects, and other approved community projects. Also we have the need for increased funding for independence efforts as a blockchain.
LUNC as a chain should be capable of funding itself on a sustainable basis, and we need to use the tax appropropriately to meet our funding needs.
NOTE:
This proposal is up for discussion before proceeding to vote.
Why not increasing the burn rate? LUNC got a lot of traction when 1.2% was announced. I got sucked in too and so far I regret. In less than a month was decreased to 0.2 % and still did not solve the volume issue. Maybe it’s time to find a middle ground by increasing to 0.6%. It might help with burning, pricing and funding.
I haven’t seen the new L1 funding proposal up yet for Q2, I don’t think it’s out yet, as they may ask for additional funds if they knew we could fund more on a continual basis.
Unless we raise the tax or raise the gas fees, or LUNC pumps, our current funding rate only barely covers the minimum they last requested of 300M per month. If LUNC didn’t raise price in time they would need to ask for more than this as the price is lower (about 960M right now).
Yes we have a built up amount in the CP right now which is fine to cover them for Q2, but we should have a funding rate which covers L1 into the future and gives additional funding for other projects, or L1 team expansion etc.
We have in the CP at current prices $47.2k worth of USTC and $193.6k LUNC. The L1’s last proposal was for $141.75k, leaving 99k left over. So we don’t even have enough for 6 months of the L1 team, we don’t have enough of a buffer, and our rate of filling the CP is not enough to expand our development.
We both talked about funding in prior threads and you spoke how we needed a lot of development funds and we had many needs. How do you suggest we have a higher funding rate?
So far without outside sources it comes down to:
Adjust the tax AnteHandler to have more in the CP (this proposal).
Increase the gas fees again
Raise the tax (I support this but a lot of people don’t)
Wait for LUNC to go up
I think it would be beneficial to have this extra funding rate, to expand the L1 team if possible, have a possible L2 team, fund other projects and have funding for the oracle rewards pool. For these reasons I believe a 75/25% split of the tax helps us.
Could you expand your thoughts on this it would be helpful for the discussion?
need funding for community pool and oracle pool. bring the tax up to .4 total .1 to community pool .1 to oracle pool. instead of burning the rest stake it perpetually forever. use the reward to buy and burn USTC to help us get closer to pegging it. remove the lunc from circulation burn ustc
While the need to increase this parameter is justifiable Imo. A 75/25 split is a little too aggressive. I would be supportive of a 70/30 split 70 burn and 30 community pool and see how that helps to replenish the community pool.
My proposal is 75% burn 25% community pool did you misread it Matt? 70/30 is more aggressive than my suggestion. I like the 75/25 because it’s 1/4 of the tax to CP 3/4 to burn and it results in easy clear numbers. If I’m misunderstanding you can you please explain?
There is no minting the distribution to the CP is direct from the tax using the new tax AnteHandler with no minting or seniorage. I am always 100% opposed to minting.
FYI I also support raising the tax, but many do not, and if the tax is not raised we need a way to fund our needs now. This proposal for a 75/25% split will do this with only a 25% reduction in on-chain burns. Our current funding rate is not good enough as explained in the OP.
Furthermore, if the tax is raised the 75/25% split is excellent as we can direct any extra funding to the oracle staking rewards pool for example.
This proposal will be going up for vote after 7 days from the original post. I will be funding it and I believe this is a good change that will help LUNC and fund additional development, which we need and will be very beneficial to the chain (we could expand the L1 Team and create L2 Team etc.)
Maybe if somebody will make a proposal for tax increase from 0.2 to 0.6 will pass.
Some people don’t agree, but don’t agree on agora forum. The community is mich bigger outside of agora forum.
With the recent decline in value I think there is an urgent need for this.
I think the L1 JTF are releasing their cost schedule for Q2 later today, I’m fully expecting that this local decrease in value has made the CP short of that mark by about 15/20k at the time of writing.
We can gamble on hoping the market rebounds, but it’s just as likely to go down with CPI numbers expected next week and FOMC hike being suggest at 50bps.
Ultimately I think we’re now in the world where we need to start considering funding… if inflation is a no no then the tax needs a better split.
80/20 or 75/25 but we defo need one of the two or development will halt part way through Q2
@Atom1 Yes I agree this proposal will be up for vote tomorrow (in approximately 17 hours), which is 7 days after I initially posted. I will post here then to confirm.
I hope the L1 considers this proposal and whether it passes in their funding pitch.
TGF is aware of this agora posting. TGF and L1TF will have updates today pertaining to the LUNC Blockchain and Community through Matt’s Market (@MarktMatts) Twitter space today (3/10/23) @ 12 pm EST that will drive further discussions on this agora posting and others. TGF sees this upcoming proposal announcement to be very important to the LUNC community. Take Care!
