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
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?
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:
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
As for legality. Are there laws prohibiting the introduction of a commission for trading?
The tax should be on any sales of LUNC, not only on exchanges.
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
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.
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
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.
I wanted to vote YES , because I feel 5x is not too high that I voted right.
I wanted to vote NO, because I feel it’s too high, that I need to reconsider?
In any event I have already voted.
The gas fee will/may not be sufficient to fund the CP , so a vote of YES on proposal 11243 will definitely affect the funding of the CP. There will be $0.00 going to the CP from the 0.2% on-chain tax. Funding of the CP was the original intent of proposal 11111. If the vote is NO on proposal 11243, then proposal 11111 will still be the law of the LUNC land and 10% of the 0.2% burn tax will go to the CP. There will be no minting as explained in an @ek826 article on the split ratio using a hot-fix.
The analysis data used to uncover the bug and was used to prove the case at hand is available in the database file chainsql6.db - Google Drive
The database is sqlite3 so you can use any number of freeware GUIs or CLI to interact with it. I would recommend SQLiteStudio (also freeware).
There are two views created (scrape_uluna_fees, scrape_uusd_fees) from the data which append three additional (calculated) columns used for the analysis and I believe come in handy when trying to search certain conditions in the data.
Again, the ultimate outcome of the analysis comes does to what @dfunk said earlier
If I can put this in one line would be: “TrustWallet users are the most hardcore Tax BURN initiative supporters amongst us”
If your reason for voting was purely to stop lunc re-mint (as is the case for most), then there is nothing to re-consider. If however, your reason for voting was to fully substitute the mint with gas fee, then you may want to re-consider, since the gas fee may not completely substitute the mint due to the data discrepancy issues highlighted earlier.
I believe that most people have voted to stop lunc re-minting so there would be nothing to re-consider for most.
This is inconclusive due to the aforementioned data issues.
Like Ed mentioned here, we will need to do a post-analysis to see what actually happens due to the data discrepancies.