In total agreement. L1 developers must not be allowed to eat their cake and still have it. Hard-coding the percent split whether 50/50 ,90/10 , 80/20 etc…IS A NO. It should be done by parameter changes under community governance. We need a team that listens to us and represents us at the “devs/retailers/validator AMAs”
@godoal ideas on CAPPING the CP are great ideas. The L1 dev team/TGF should be able to figure out the weekly budget that should be able to fund L1 and L2 developments.
From our discussions would the following be reasonable assumptions?
-
If the tax revenue is less than the required funding amount then all revenue frorm tax should go to the CP.
-
If the tax revenue is greater than the funding amount, then the funding amount should be sent to the CP . Additionally, the difference between tax revenue and funding amount should then be split and 90% goes to Burn address and 10% goes to CP based on proposal #11111. The reason for the 10% to CP is for incidental costs. Hence, it is important for the split to be parameterized. For instance if projected weekly funding for development is reduced, then the community can decide what to do in terms of splitting the tax revenue by simple using parameter changes instead of asking for a program upgrade, which honestly I dont know what that will entail, but it seem that it would be more difficult or take more work to achieve.