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

This forum is so well-designed that you’re not even reading the previous comments. TFL has actually designed their own Discourse much better than this. I can’t even reply properly cause of the 30-min timeout. Now, if you reply to this comment, I will have to get back after a half an hour break. Lol. Who would even wanna interact here like this?

The only reason that Duncan could be lying about the calculations is cause he wants to take down LUNC. I don’t see any other reason why he would attach screenshots from an Excel file to show his own total.

He has literally shown it over here that he is getting $69 negative with 5x current fees and taxes.

This is only for 500 txns. Now scale it to 1 million txns. Do you know how much tax and fees that is?

Don’t do a theoretical calculation. Talk to someone who is running an AMM or trading bot on it like Duncan. He will give you the correct figure. I don’t even know what calculations you are doing anymore.

I didn’t know about the exact taxes and fees until Duncan had tweeted this, so I will only comment on updated information. Not old information. And I will prefer to trust someone who is actually running a bot on it, and not doing theoretical calculations.

P.S. This is insanely difficult to have a conversation here so I am out of this thread for sure after this comment. You guys can continue.

NEVER said he was lying or disputed his trading data. To put it plainly I said he’s a trader and our interests, in the governance of the chain, might not be aligned.

The holy trinity of powers in our chain consists of: Delegators - Validators - Developers. I’m a delegator and as a member of the third pillar of power in our chain, I try to make sure I responsibly control what is being done by the other two (Developers, Validators)

I trust the chain data as it’s immutable. I am scraping it as we speak to collect all fee data (not just from DEXs that your trader friend did) so I can get better-projected values on that x5 than the ones extracted from the LUNC Penguins dashboard.
Will upload the data in a sheet and post them here for everyone to see and play with when done.

Used a restricted word as well and send me to post after 30’ again :slight_smile: Oh well…


Delegators as you say need to take a more active role in the trinity of the LUNC ecosystem. In my opinion ,we are the group with the largest investment. We need a “Board of Directors” that is independent of validators and developers, that will represent our interest.

Does @wrapped_dday support any type of fees/taxes?

The community has to get past the micro-burn mentality.
Lunc does not have a math problem, it has a business problem, which is not going to be solved with a mathematical approach.
To change this kind of thing is to send a bad message to investors, who are looking for clear and stable rules.
This is a bad proposal.

The problem is the minute we take that step we stop being decentralized and we start depending on individuals.

I prefer the concept of swarm intelligence for our community. The steps to get to the optimal path are quite simple, all it needs is more eyes and brains working together and contributing little by little toward its solution.

We’ll get there eventually, the swarm is still in its discovery phase…
(a.k.a. We are still learning the ropes of how to be a community chain that does not depend on a single entity)

There can neither be absolute centralization nor can there be absolute decentralization.TR tried this full decentralization ideology and is now history. I strongly believe that we need a level of Administrative Decentralization in the delegator’s pillar. This “BOARD” will be under the control of the delegators.This decentralized leadership structure is where decision making is delegated by governance to individuals within the delegator’s pillar. In swarm intelligence there are different niches performed by different members in the colony. We should not run away from a “LEAD TEAM”. Is the JL1TF headed by Ed and Z a decentralized body?Imo, No, but it’s very functional and they are getting things done.

1 Like

I’d like to know firstly why you took and ran with someone else’s idea. We have had good guidance thus far from prop 11111 there were additional props coming. I am voting no with a veto.

When I was still involved as a member of the LCC Team, along with the other communities we warned TR that they need to make absolutely clear to their members that they were not the new TFL, because we could see this type of thinking lingering on a lot of community voices.
They did try but the social excitement of the victories was so strong that erased that from people’s minds and that came to bite them when some of their members decide to follow a commercial path in relation to the chain.

We were also trying to form a round table governance codenamed the TGG (Terra Guidance Group) comprised of all the LUNC communities reps out there (so TR was one of them)…pretty much the BOARD you were referring to with the aim to provide guidance. I don’t know how far that has gone and what is the progress with that.
I fully disclosed my case to everyone at the time (validators/devs/my community and other community members) I would hang my gloves and take a back seat once we re-democratize the chain and so I did :slight_smile:

So the honest answer is I don’t know…maybe it’s worth having an overseeing guidance group but maybe not.

You are free to do whatever you like, your decision, your vote.
Because the two props are different in the way of execution, see below:

Firstly, I think it’s a bit unfair in stating that @godoal ran with someone’s idea. Secondly, what’s wrong with the ultimate outcome that these proposals may bring?


Prop 11111 was the right thing to do, to cancel that stupid proposal 10983. Now is going even further, cancelling completely the reminting while still providing funds for development. I think is the best idea so far.


I support especially in view of fact that Binance called out reminting of burned tokens with their recent 50% reduction in off chain burn tax. The prop also effectively facilitates capitalisation of CP by virtue of 5x on gas fees…


I understand the need to appeal to the burn crowd and reduce/deprecate any minting from seigniorage, but now isn’t the time to do this. We’re in desperate need of funding for L1 work, and if there’s an added 100M in there every so often, we should take it. As a community, we’re looking to fund primarily L1 work for the foreseeable future, and anything that imperils that should be considered a net negative. I’m glad people are happy with the L1 Joint Task Force, but why stop at just 5-6 devs if/when we could afford more? Personally, I think it’s a bad idea to kneecap our ability to self-fund at such a critical time, even if said funding makes only a small part of the overall asset refill.

On the other hand, I agree with the need to increases the transaction tax for the purpose of funding the community pool (for all the reasons listed above). Spiking the the gas fees by 5x isn’t the end of the world, and will massively help with fund accretion for community spending initiatives (as outlined by Ed in his Medium article a while ago).

To summarize: I’ve voted NO for the seigniorage remint deprecation, and YES on the gas fees uptick.

And thanks for putting up such a clear-cut and thoughtful discussion on Agora, @dfunk, and for splitting your prop into 2 separate portions on the Station. In the future, though, I’d advise you to wait at least 7 days from Agora discussion to Station… just to give a bit more time to community members and validators so both groups can participate in the conversation.

Shalom! :pray:


Thank you for the constructive feedback @RabbiJebediah

1 Like

It would be great if those two proposals can run for 3 months without changing anything.

Just to see if those can actually give some results and then consider reminting again.


Agree, we should have a time bumper for each proposals.

1 Like

Scraping is still ongoing but the script has scraped the results for Dec12-18, so I can play with them in the DB directly.

You are right the numbers didn’t add up. I am getting a LOT more LUNC collected in tx fees than those reported by LUNC Penguins. Fyi, I sum up only the ulunc denominated fees to keep it simple

I did find an article on the internet about the fees saying that all transaction fees were CAPed to 1 SDT = $1.4 so I put it to the test! I converted the collected tx uluna fees into their $ equivalent based on our SPOT price and use $1.4 for those exceeding > 1SDT while used their calculated $ equivalent for those < 1SDT. Then sum-up the $ values of all transactions and divide again the total with our SPOT to get the LUNC equivalent.
Surprisingly enough the LUNC total tallies (ish) with the calculated value taken handraulic from LUNC Penguins (after excluding re-minted coins!).
For that (low volume) period it came down to 86,135,714.29 LUNC. The handraulic calculation was circa 76M but then again our SDT equivalent to $ is a bit less than $1.4 now!

Please check if that makes sense with your scraped data…

1 Like

It is more than expected isn’t it?

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.