[Proposal] Deprecate Seigniorage Reward Policy and Increase Gas Fees by 5x

I guess more proposals to relax fees in future if its seen to be constraining function of transactions.

It’s pretty much the same as calculated manually.

To make my life easier I have used 0.0014 as SPOT (when it’s 0.000148 now but should be really using the spot price at the transaction date) and $1.4 for SDT while it’s $1.33 now. All these add up…but the ball-park appears to be spot-on.

That’s the total fees for that week, only half goes to the CP!

You are off by 13.15% and you are saying that the ballpark figure is fine?

How much do you think the profit percentage of a dapp operating on the blockchain is? 15%? What is this? Web 2.0?

We are not operating a restaurant that we are operating at a margin of 30-40%. This is a defi dapp that we are talking about.

We are operating these dApps at a margin of 0.1-1%, and your calculation is off by 13.15%?!

The proposal is in voting right now. Are you serious about this?

Just give validators the keyword BURN and they will vote on a burger also without thinking. I don’t even know what to say at this point. This is beyond me.

You’re gonna come back with some calculation after back-tracing it and show that oh, it’s matching with 86 million. Wow. Real due diligence done on everyone’s part here. Congratulations :tada::confetti_ball: Everyone here did well today.

P.S. Neither am I a burn freak nor do I want more money into CP. I had said this before - whatever you are planning to do, do it after due diligence and all considerations so that more and more dapps can launch on the chain. Duncan already showed his calculations and all I see here is random projections without actual proof of taxes, from a running application. Anyway the proposal is passing, so what’s the issue? Validators will make it pass anyway since this is stopping remint.

By all means, you are welcome to scrape all transactions and match each to the spot price it was actioned at the time.
If you wait a bit longer I’ll give you the scraped transactions for the period to save you time so you don’t start from scratch :slight_smile:
I am looking for the ballpark population of the CP to ascertain if x5 (as the proposal says) is enough or maybe should be higher.

The calculations he did last month? US timezone format?


@wrapped_dday would really appreciate it if you could clarify and give us some inputs here.

when you withdraw rewards fee is in ustc. also when you stake the default is in ustc. Same when you swap a token to another.
What gas fees you mean? The equivalent in lunc or something else?
So if it is the equivalent, say
for delegate is 0.179122 USTC
for withdrawing rewards is 1.12066 USTC
for swaping is 0.10819 USTC (+tax)

Hi @terraki, I am looking to track down the portion of the fees that make it into the community pool based on the community_tax parameter of 50%. There are all sorts of fees collected LUNC/USTC etc. I am focusing on LUNC so I limit the search field.

I am still scratching my head about it tbh. The below seems to be inaccurate as well, I cannot cross-reference some transactions so I have to assume it’s wrong:

Back to the drawing board…


yeah the questions is what is the ratio lunc/ustc in the original post? meaning how did they calculate the lunc

1 Like

That’s a very good question, we tend to focus only on the LUNC wallet in our CP, not the others.

The check and this proposal are only taking into account the LUNC wallet in the CP; I will check the USTC allocation as well once I have the chain data and figure out how the allocation works.

1 Like

Please leave all political squabble and hate talk out of the post.

  1. What does the exchanges have to do with it? Exchanges will face the fact that there is a sales tax. And everything. Then traders will decide whether to trade these assets or not. I believe intraday rapid shooters will go away, but medium- and long-termers will come. And a lot of. The price will rise. The money supply is shrinking. Exchanges will be glad to
  2. As for legality. Are there laws prohibiting the introduction of a commission for trading?
  3. The tax should be on any sales of LUNC, not only on exchanges.
  4. If the goal is really to reduce the money supply to 10 billion, there is simply no other solution. Let the gas fee go to the developers’ rewards, and the sales tax to the incineration address. And no reproduction of coins

I wonder why we cannot remove burn tax and include in tax fee like other L2 chains ETH, polygon etc…

Some fresh analysis to show CP growth in the last epoch (excluding the recent mint):

CP balance as on:

  • 2nd Jan - 975,974,001 LUNC
  • 3rd Jan - 980,174,504 LUNC
  • 4th Jan - 982,452,683 LUNC
  • 5th Jan - 984,144,592 LUNC
  • 6th Jan - 985,845,537 LUNC

This indicates an average increase of ~2.5M LUNC per day. At 5x, this would generate ~375M LUNC per month in the CP - enough to cover dev costs, while still keeping gas prices competitive and offering higher rewards to delegates.


@dfunk Sounds great, awesome work! The vote is looking good so far.

1 Like

Hello all,

Upon further investigation into on-chain data and gas fees, an unusual bug has been found. This bug seems to be coming from TrustWallet.

For reference, please consider the following transaction: https://finder.terra.money/classic/tx/124EE244991EFB3E1154E2EA378D556D1447648971DCACE3F7F5AB21F8B9C5A8

The tx fee charged on this transaction is: 3,000,006.870568 Lunc

However, if we calculate the gas fees using the formula, fees = gas limit * gas prices, we get 1,212,810 * 5.665uluna = 6.87 Lunc

This discrepancy does not just happen with this transaction, but across multiple transactions from TrustWallet. TrustWallet is currently being informed of this issue.

In light of this bug, please consider revising your vote on Proposal 11242, until this bug has been resolved and a more informed decision can be made.

Proposal 11243 is not impacted by this bug, and can be continued to vote on as usual.

Apologies for the inconvenience and thank you for your understanding.


Apart from the fact that it’s gonna pass in a day, can you please give us some more details?

  1. You are saying that fees being charged, is less for TW? How is this happening exactly? The tracker isn’t tracking it properly? Is there a calculation mistake in the code?

  2. Is the L1 team looking into this for a possible fix? Have you informed them?

  3. How exactly is 11242 impacted by this? You mean to say that if we stop reminting this problem will persist?

What seems to be happening is that TrustWallet is charging an additional 0.2% of the transaction value, half of which is going to the CP. But this would be best answered by TrustWallet.

Yes, @ek826 has been informed.

There is no impact as such if you voted to stop re-minting. However, the increase in gas fee alone may not fully substitute the dev funding in light of this bug. However, it should still help.


Thanks for the clarification and transparency. 5x is still more than we have now!


We had taken down ‘Total Fees Accrued’ chart after @dfunk notified us about the discrepancy with community pool data.

After multiple rounds of debugging with @dfunk, we have figured out the issue. The tx fees that we query for every transaction from the lcd also includes the burn tax amount. The data you see in our chart is this total amount. But, the 50% that goes to community pool is excluding the burn tax. Hence the mismatch

‘Total Fees Accrued’ chart is back with a disclaimer - StakeBin | Terra Classic
We have a new chart to track community pool - StakeBin | Terra Classic

Sorry for the confusion!


Thanks for the clarification @StakeBin - that really helps! And also for the new Community Pool dashboard.

I believe this is the biggest hinderance in estimating transaction fees from gas. @ek826 could you look into separating the transaction fees from burn tax and the transaction fees from gas at the lcd api level? This would help get the much needed transparency.