Also, keep in mind I am not your adversary - other TFL devs and I work insane hours in a high-complexity problem space in the best interest of the Terra Ecosystem. would appreciate it if you could keep the tone respectful before making blunt accusations like âyou are violating the white paperâ.
As the primary author of the white paper (and therefore somewhat of the authority on the subject) we are executing at the exact intention of the WP and the original project planning, and we put changes up to governance whenever needed, so perhaps itâs worth considering the possibility you donât have enough context instead of assuming malice from us.
I donât understand - I donât have the ability to edit Terra protocol code on the fly, I can only submit parameter change proposals and hope governance passes them to make changes. Even if I wanted to I couldnât make changes without governance clearing quorum & having majority of YES votes first.
Whatever you think is happening here is imaginary ^^;;
Thanks - does this mean the previously passed proposals (TIP42/43) wonât take effect, and that seignorage will continue to be routed to Oracle Rewards until TIP 42 and 43 pass this time?
This proposal over and done, though perhaps in future rather than a straight up burn, why not burn by swapping/converting excess Luna in the pool to a terra stable coin? And if were swapped to UST, could it then not be deposited in Anchor?
Comm pool burn will be good for non lunatics to illustrate the reduction in $luna supply. We know the comm pool is inactive/burnt in principle but seeing the headline numbers esp with the current size of the comm pool (and itâs still growing!) Will make very clear to newcomers about what is going on, and no one should bet against the moon.
Bearing in mind vote time, can we get this proposal going, perhaps after the next seignorage distribution?
What happens to those who are waiting to be undelected when burning all the LUNA opened a price increase for UST ⊠it is not fair for those who do not delegate
Surely after seignorage tomorrow takes us to over 50m Luna in the comm pool it will be time to get s proposal to burn? Iâm not sure how to start or I would do one myself.
I really do think it would be quite a big statement to torch it, so outsiders can see the supply decreasing further from genesis. Any vote will take time to be enacted too⊠giving time for top-up prior to C-5 to generate a couple more seignorage drops to the comm pool?
Not so much âdo is using the poolâ as do floated the idea and the community seems to largely agree on the premise. Currently waiting on proposal and discussion on this. Eyeballing consensus seems to be 10m cap community pool, and some bootstrapping of ozone insurance fund. Someone correct if I got this wrong.
I think the thing is the last two paragraphs of the original post by Do are âhouse keeping to followâ, both of which gave a clear message of what will happen. Regular comm pool burns via governance votes initiated by Do.
So if a change from this eg UST minting from comm pool. To my mind it shouldnât affect the Luna presently in the comm pool which are to be burnt for all the reasons Do sets out above, narrative, simplification.
But absolutely fine for any future allocations (provided there is a favourable Govt Vote for it, which I suspect there would be).
If you change the rules retrospectively now, it is a mixed message that brings in doubt about what else might be reversed or undone, itâs just messy.
I donât think insurance pool has to be generated overnight, it could be done with the weekly burns going forward. I mean say itâs like $15m/day at the moment so we would do it in less than three weeks?
Just be a much better story I think⊠Maybe itâs the plan, but strange no official posts here.
How would burning the all the seigniorage impact the reward for staking. In other words, what portion of current percentage of staking reward is derived from seigniorage?
My concern is that this move is too early as for many people, the staking reward is a huge incentive for them to be part of the Terra-Luna ecosystem. Ultimately having a higher staking reward incentives people to hold and stake for long-term rather than trade their LUNA. Especially given the 21-day lock-up period I donât think itâs unreasonable to have a higher reward for stakers.
Furthermore, because we are still so early I think it does make sense for the community pool to be well funded for growth. I donât know what a good number would be, best to consult people that are actually working at Terra Luna for that. But I would argue, that Terra-Luna should take a aggressive growth strategy rather than slow and responsible. We are still early and there will be other competitors to Luna in the future. Possibly on different blockchains, slightly different spin or an different model for an algorithmic stable coin or take decentralized banking ecosystem.
I agree with the sentiment here. Personally I would like to see some hard numbers and calculations how how it would impact the staking rewards and community pool.
Personally, if LUNA rewards were like 5 - 6%, I wouldnât be staking in this environment. The only reason I have so much capital locked with Terra Luna is because of the higher staking rewards. I know many would think the same thing especially people in crypto in todayâs environment. The 21 period lockup is a huge burden for staker when the trading opportunities are so lucrative today.
Theyâve set the staking reward from seignoirage to 0
As of Columbus-5, youâll instead get transaction fees, which will increase what you currently earn
Thereâs like a Billion in the pool. Thatâs too much. 5-10% of that would be perfectly reasonable. Think about what the pool is for, helping to pay for new projects. Primarily covering their audit costs.
Rather than burning the community pool again, we should use it to bootstrap Ozone.
The velocity of all the UST in Ozone will be ~0. So it will be just as out-of-the-market as if it had been burnt, except people will feel more comfortable using Ozone.