Dear friends, don’t you think that we are discussing mouse fuss here? These are all half measures. The project will not recover from these actions. I think the gas fee should be left to reward developers. As for the money supply of LYNC and USTC, it needs to be reduced more aggressively. Otherwise we will lose TERRA. I propose to introduce a commission on burning shorts. Without re-minting. Ideally, you need to leave the amount of coins that was before the collapse. In the meantime, the developers will restore the binding.
What do you mean “commission on burning shorts”?
Not sure how easy is to directly cap the CP tbh. The no-code approach is to do an official spend proposal that everyone votes on (identical to the one we have used for TR/L1 funding) which sends the amount voted on to the BURN address
If not mistaken the gas fees need to be added manually to the Validators node (terrad) environment file.
To give you a measure of comparison, LUNC on its prime had 98% fewer gas fees than Ethereum. The x5 is so minuscule increase given the inflation the coin has experienced that can stay with us indefinitely. As a matter of fact, it’s so small that even x10 and x20 would do! And in the event, we start dropping 0s like crazy like another contributor mentioned earlier…we can always raise a spending proposal to send the excess to burn ;). Also in the case, we are approaching a B total supply we reduce them to gain even bigger gas advantage vs our competitor blockchains
The projected calculations using data from LUNC Penguins say yes. But projections are not always accurate so as ed said earlier in his post in this forum we might have to take note record and adjust accordingly. Again the x5 is supper conservative increase. NO, the burn tax WILL NOT be split in two. ALL proceeds will go to BURN as was initially intended.
Both proposals, one way or another, would stop seigniorage (a.k.a remint) so that is a common denominator. Since the one raised by Ed was superseded by this one (provided it passes), there is no need to discuss about it any longer. It’s “problem solved”, no re-mint is disabled and that’s that.
Ed angry? I would think he’s relieved he can focus with the L1 teams with core dev projects than hacks 
Based on this proposal the chain itself will take care of the funding of its developers. If two-months down the line we find out we need to open the tap a bit more we can get the fees up a bit more. We have A LOT of spare room in that department.
I believe I have answered that in your first post further up.
I would say increase the gas fees further. Based on some analysis by Ed some time ago we should go up to x60 to catch up the fees used by other chain (like LUNA)
Could you please read the forum from the start because that is EXACTLY what this proposal aims to achieve…without code hacks or half measures.
6 Likes
Great work. I’m very pleased as an onlooker with the way things are turning out now. Hopefully the L1 devs can be left to build this time around instead of having to respond to the media circus.
4 Likes
commission on LUNC sales
I’m afraid this will be impossible…
- Exchanges must implement and I doubt they will do it
- If by any magic exchanges will be persuaded to implement Terra will cease to exist as trading involves both buying and selling and prohibiting/taxing heavily one side of the trade is not legal nor fair
Ed suggested that it’s possible to parameterized the burn tax. Depending on the split , it would just mean more or less burning. Prior to @ek826 hotfix suggestion all the burn tax amount was sent to the burn wallet and then the percentage amount was re-minted to the CP. If @ek826 hotfix is implemented, if required , it will not result in any re-minting. The bottom line is there is no hard-code which opens the possibility of the Seigniorage to be adjusted.
I am all for the total burn tax fund to be sent to the burn wallet, provided that we have sufficient fund to pay the devs.
Thanks for the heads up, just noticed the post in the other proposal.
Personally, I don’t see an issue with that, if nothing else it provides options. It’s good to have features.
The main difference between the two proposals is that:
- One is using the on-chain tax function developed initially for the burn effort (only) as a vehicle to fund the community pool for development purposes
- This one is using the transaction fees as a vehicle to fund the community pool for development purposes leaving the on-chain tax function to be used purely for the burn effort.
2 Likes
I truly look forward to your suggestions on topics. Always food for thoughts.
1 Like
Have in mind this guy will always be crying over any fees as his goal is to have a 0% burn contribution from transactions. Truth is that they will adjust if we raise the gas.
5 Likes
I have no idea about what you just said.
Twitter is not the medium for proposal discussions, Agora is the chain’s official governance board for discussion. The user should have argued their case here while the proposal is in the discovery phase…maybe the message has not synced in with some that LUNC is now a community-owned chain and we ALL have responsibilities.
I cannot comment on someone’s trade. Some are successful, others are not.
Maybe the user would like to raise a proposal to reduce the tax to 0.1% in order to offset their losses…and let the community vote on that decision!
Btw, if they are staking, they will probably make the loss in staked rewards.
3 Likes
I think a more sophisticated approach is warranted for a few reasons.
One is having automation means less future work, discussion, proposals, arguments etc.
Two is proposal fatigue over the same issue. Having to vote to knock off a billion to the burn wallet periodically will get on the communities nerves, they don’t like excessive proposals.
Three is the benefit of having this squared away with appropriate code which can be adjusted later dealing with any excess funding issues. We are a long way from it, but we don’t want to end up like new Luna with hundreds of millions of dollars in their CP.
These are my thoughts on it, and as to difficulty to fit a cap on the CP I don’t have the expertise to weigh that, but there are downsides to the simple vote to spend excess in the CP option.
Sounds like a feature is at play for our L1 Developers
Having said that would be nice if we had a kanban somewhere where we keep all proposed features for the dev teams’ consideration
1 Like
- Tx on Terra 2.0 - https://terra.stakebin.io/terra/transactions…
- Tx on Terra Classic - https://terraclassic.stakebin.io/terra/transactions…
Tx on Terra Classic are ~42 times more than Terra 2.0
Even after raising gas fees by 5x, Classic will still be cheaper than 2.0 by ~3x.
2 Likes
There is no designated forum for discussion of any topic. We are here cause otherwise we would have to be on the TR server which is probably more active than this. Validators don’t even reply here. Validators have a separate Discord group with Ed. That’s where they converse, so no, this is not a designated forum for discussion.
In fact, this is running on Discourse. You can take a subscription and make your own hosted server on Discourse. This is probably being paid by TFL currently cause has to be paying for it. No one made this forum. I hear people keep saying TR made this. Are you serious? This is running on Discourse. Just Chrome Inspect it.
Coming to the point which I had raised in the original topic where you had replied to me:
While that discussion was on, you made the proposal here in 3 days. The time stamp is visible on those discussions.
I think you are in some kinda hurry that even development teams are not. I don’t know why though. You’re not even getting paid for this.
I understand what you are trying to do and it does take the load off the L1 team, but this is the same as what Sneed and @CosmosCapybara did. She’s not even here to defend her “case” after all the problems have already happened.
You are also gonna disappear without a name or identity even if anything wrong happens. What’s the issue with that? Right? You are ofc not responsible for decisions that we took. That’s what governance is.
You are not considering that 1 million txns per day is a possibility on a Dex or AMM. That’s what we are literally making in the Ziggurat discussion or even Faffy’s Dex, if you haven’t noticed yet. It’s not like we don’t know that there are dapps which are coming up which will have 1 million txns per day. That’s something we have been talking about for the last one month.
Before the TR fallout, all discussions were happening in the TR Discord server. Which is why you don’t know. Everyone is still most probably discussing stuff there and not here.
Nop. This forum has always been the point for governance discussion since the beginning of Terra.
Why do you think only URLs referring to this site proposals were chosen to be allowed in the TS/RS proposals for voting?
You have a point there. That should be public so we are still using the old one. That doesn’t mean they don’t have presence in here though.
The subject, as a whole, did start with Eds proposal 8 days ago…this is merely a continuation of that.
I am not gearing or wishing to become anyone’s leader and/or give directions to anyone. Being able to raise a proposal freely is one of the privileges of being a member of a community-owned chain!
Am afraid that is a limited view. There were at least three more discord server LUNC communities I can think of, other than the TR Discord server, where things were discussed.
@Vegas in the pre-governance period was pretty much in all of them, trying to organize things in a common roadmap (like herding cats), I still don’t think people realize how much effort it took to bring ALL disjoined communities to a common cause.
Anyway. Still all proposals start and end here.
1 Like
Exactly what I said. There are ideas, discussions and decisions being taken, without any accountability or responsibility.
The major part of the discussion regarding 10983 didn’t even happen over here. It happened on the TR server. Sneed and Capybara convinced all validators over there to vote on 10983. That’s how it passed.
Now after it passed, and we have the problem with Binance, all validators have relinquished responsibility of even having voted on it. They are simply saying they were “misled” which is true, just that in other words, it means no accountability for actions or votes to modify the blockchain at will. And Sneed and Capybara have disappeared, leaving us to hear the music from Binance, and investors suffering cause of that.
The value of LUNC was almost above 0.00017 before 10983 and now it hasn’t even recovered till that point.
Are you absolutely sure that if by chance you make a mistake and dApps can’t launch profitably cause of increasing the gas fees 5x, then you (without a name and identity, and with one validator question on the thread) are gonna help us recover from that loss? Or, as you suggested, it’s our problem?
@arunadaybasu If even after a 5x gas increase LUNC is 3x cheaper than Luna 2.0, as @dfunk says, how can you say Dapps won’t be able to launch on LUNC? From what I was aware LUNA has much more dapps. Also Ed confirmed in his medium article a gas increase even much more than 5x would be very feasible No Money, Mo’ Problems?. Introduction | by Edward Kim | Dec, 2022 | Medium. Discussions are held here out in the open not on a private server, with L1 Dev Ed and other community members putting in their input.
3 Likes