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

LUNC re-minting has to stop! I voted YES on both proposals. Thanks @dfunk :pray:

5 Likes

Why are we talking about re-minting , when @ek826 has a hot-fix to prevent re-minting.

Whether Ed’s hot-fix needs to be applied or not will depend on the post-analysis like mentioned earlier.

We will also get a better idea of how much gas is being used to fund devs, so a more informed decision can be made on the burn:CP split, which may not necessarily land up being 50:50

4 Likes

Proposal 11111 repealed the 50:50 proposal. Why are we still harping on this 50/50 split? The burn tax was not intended to be used to fund devs.We need to find a long standing solution for dev development. LUNC is a deflationary token and any attempt to reduce the burn rate will have an adverse effect on delegators’ confidence in this concept. Let’s not mess around again. Every time we reduce the amount that should be burnt, it resulted in negative price action

2 Likes

Why did we still push to pass this Seigniioger proposal, despite the fact that the findings were inconclusive? I would suggest in the future , that thorough investigation be done when @ek826 @Zaradar are involved in proposals of this nature. Now we are facing the possibility of rescinding both proposals before they aren’t even passed. In my opinion this is amateurish stuff. Again I beseech the framers of proposals to exercise due diligence when putting proposals to vote.

4 Likes

That’s the beauty of those 2 prop. It stops reminting and devs are funded from gas fees. I totally agree with you that reminting was completely illogical and stupid.

3 Likes

Because one way or another that had to stop, it’s just a front-runner to stop ahead of schedule a fault. Eds’ proposal will stop it indefinitely.

Agree, but having seen the nature of the bug I’m not sure we would have captured it back then when the tax module was activated.

No one was expecting the values shown on so many charts using data coming directly out of the chain to be inaccurate! It’s an unforeseen side-effect of intervening directly in the taxation module.

Now we all know what is causing this and we can plan accordingly.

1 Like

Are you then saying @ek826’s “hot-fix” implementation will be able to parameterize this “burn-split” without Seigniorage?

Confusion reigns when Ed is saying re-consider on both proposals and I think you and @dfunk are saying continue to vote on 11243 as usual?

@ek826 on twitter
3/ When fixed, much less will be going to the CP. Delegates and validators in the #lunc community should take this new information into account when considering the data presented for prop 11242/11243.

Fair enough.Aren’t these modules being tested thoroughly before being implementation? However with proposal 11243, being presented as being able to fund the CP, required that more work should have been done before it was presented for voting. Because of being sold on this solution, I voted YES since I want to burn every fund from the burn tax and that it would not affect funding for the CP. Now we may have to split that “burn-tax”.We rush to pass proposals without “testing”. Frankly, we are rushing too much to vote on proposals too quickly.

Are you then saying @ek826’s “hot-fix” implementation will be able to parameterize this “burn-split” without Seigniorage?

Confusion reigns when Ed is saying re-consider on both proposals and I think you and @dfunk are saying continue to vote on 11243 as usual?

@ek826
3/ When fixed, much less will be going to the CP. Delegates and validators in the #lunc community should take this new information into account when considering the data presented for prop 11242/11243.

Yes, (soz I thought that was clear) that’s why he says on his proposals title “deprecate Seigniorage Reward Policy”. The split will apply directly to the AnteHandler which will intercept only the on-chain taxed coins before getting burned so the selected percentage will be sent to the CP instead of the burn address. The split happens before the funds end in the burn address so there’s no need for remint.

There’s so much testing that can be done when you intervene so deep in the workings of the chain. That’s why I try to find ways away from loading more features on that tax hack.

You and me as well. I trusted the chain data and made my decisions based on that.
We (with @dfunk) start to peel the onion on Saturday morning when we had most of the data, and we got to a point everything made sense again, we were even getting good results…that was until we bumped on a record that didn’t make sense, at all, which took us up to Sunday night to untangle. You know the rest…
Will there be an improvement in the CP population using tx fees? Yes
Is it going to be enough to fund development out of it? Probably not

2 Likes

Everything is crystal clear now.

On an off note topic I am hearing a lot about Binance wanting us to stop luna classic re-minting . From what I understand from the below, he didnt say that.

From December 2022 , Binance will be burning 50% of the LUNC spot and margin trading fees instead of 100%, and delaying sending the LUNC trading fee burn contribution until 2023-03-01 , to ensure LUNC trading fees will be excluded from being re-minted.

In my opinion ,he is saying ,do not re-mint binance off chain fee transactions fund. Binance cannot dictate to us what we do with on chain tax. That’s why we can split whatever funds we have from the on chain burn-tax to do whatever we want with it.

Your take on this matter.

1 Like

Spot on.

In effect they said I don’t like you re-minting what we send for burn so turn it off for our burns. I’m very surprised they didn’t pull the plug, instead, we got away with a slap on the wrist. I certainly see CZ in a different light after that.

What we do with on-chain tax is up to us provided we do some burning as well (hense, why I think Eds proposal is still applicable and it’s good to move forward so we have options if the CP is not populated fast enough via tx fees using our current volume)

Prop 11242 will deliver that everywhere, so Binance should be happy about that.

2 Likes

I suggested in many spaces that what we were doing was misappropriating cz’s money but the powers that be were too arrogant to listen. Very lucky indeed.

I like to discuss things here with intelligent people, so that I am fully aware of the facts surrounding any issue.

Great work @godoal and @dfunk .

3 Likes

Disagree with part 2. One of the best things about Terra Classic is the low fees - and you are effectively destroying that

The tx fees are so low we are still competitive.

While on that subject, something good might have come out of all this investigation in regard to optimizing dApps. Looks like their taxation doesn’t offer much to the burn (<5%) so we might as well remove that to let them work more efficiently and attract even more…

1 Like

Thanks for your feedback. The fees will continue to remain low even after the gas increase.

Besides, a solution to lower the tx fees while still increasing gas fees has been cracked. Stay tuned!

4 Likes

All Nodes voted YES on both proposals. So this is now set in. Congrats!

@dfunk @godoal

What are your takes on idea to add a tax, which would burn 50% Ustc and other tokens that are distributed to stakers as a reward beside Lunc (excluded from that)?

This way supply of “stables” would decrease faster and repeg would be easier.

1 Like

Let’s provide the means for our dApps to flourish first :wink:

Hint below:

Fingers crossed your props pass. Not saying congrats yet, but I certainly will if you manage to end the seignorage and put another system in place. Great work.

1 Like

The seigniorage stop parameter will be coded in the chain right after the proposal voting period ends and will take effect in the next epoch which currently is:
image

4 Likes