Refactor Burn AnteHandler and deprecate Seigniorage Reward Policy

LevatharNode supports this, as soon ss it makes way to governance Levatharanode will cast the supporting vote. Lets go!!

Not sure of this calculation but assuming it were correct, we can easily increase this 100M that is going to the CP to 1B by increasing the current gas rates by 10x. This also benefits the validators/stakers as it increases staking rewards as well.

According to EK’s No Money, Mo Problems article, we could 60x our gas fees and still remain under a penny (~$0.009) for a basic send transaction.

However, instead of raising gas fees directly by 60x, we should follow a staggered approach to raise gas fees from 10x to 60x to better understand network effects.

1 Like

Indeed. As it stands 5x increase in gas rates would be more than enough to cover for two major dev streams in parallel every three months.

At the same time, there’s no need to use the Seigniorage Reward Policy setting at all in order to divert any portion of the on-chan tax to the CP so all on-chain taxes will go towards the burn effort.

@ek826 Could you please review the above? It appears to be the least impact solution and at the same time, it is using the chains built-in functions to solve the problem rather than bespoke hacks.


What’s the solution? Increasing gas fees by 5x and then eventually taking it to 60x of current fees? How is that a solution we didn’t know about already?

You are missing something in your research:

These are all proposals which haven’t passed or not passing. And we did not vote for these. Validators did. They did not want these changes, so how can you suggest the exact same change these proposals got rejected for?

I don’t know what is the reference for your research, but why don’t you talk to some people? Starting with these people whose proposals got rejected.

It’s easy to get caught in doing things a certain way, that is why Agora is great. Through discussion and brainstorming, we get to the most optimal solution. The trick is to use arguments and more words than Twitter :wink:
The solution contains three parts:

  1. Parameter Proposal to set the seigniorage reward policy back to 0, so we stop remint immediately
  2. Text proposal to instruct validators to increase the gas fees 5x. If memory serves they need to change a line in their nodes with the new values and restart.
  3. (Optional) Text proposal to deprecate (completely) the seigniorage reward policy parameter. I said optional because now we all know how bad setting that seigniorage value is and don’t think will be voted to pass as a parameter again. We nearly lost Binance support and a lot of other individuals because of it.

No wonder they were rejected! Some of the proposals mentioned were incomplete and others were irrelevant as they were raised as text when the ask was a parameter change. That last one is a bit weird, in practice will create chain volume but no one will get back the same amount they send to the mockup burn pool, if 40% is not met, because someone will have to pay the fees/tax on the reverse transaction. It would make more sense if it was asking the development team to add a feature in TS/RS to allow delegators to op-in a $ amount weekly autoburn from their wallet!

Using funds generated by transaction gas fees for dev purposes is something that pretty much every other blockchain is doing. Our chain has that feature as well, so we might as well use that instead of trying to hack the hack we put in place in order to enable the burn requirement…


Keep away from proposals. You are a black cat. I begged for those who proposed/advocated the misappropriation of binance burn initiative to consult with him, @echel0n was too big for his britches, by stating"…If binance wants to vote …let him “stake/become a validator”. Now here you are again supporting the 50/50 proposal whereas @ek826 believes “in parameterization…” . I beg of you sit small.


There’s a much better way (better than the CAP), no need for any type of split…all go to burn and there’s no need for code writing…


This is why we need a common Discord community. If we discuss things here, because of the 30 mins slow mode and not being able to edit comments after posting them, it is impossible to discuss any topic here. It’s like we have to come back with walls of text to explain a single thing. And 50 comments bloats up the interface on mobile. Then you gotta keep scrolling up walls of text. Then only 3 posts are visible for each topic on mobile, and after Governance you can’t see other topic categories.

This probably the most inconvenient forum I have ever been on :slightly_smiling_face:

Its inconvenience is its superpower.
It stops spamming and forces you to stop and think before you write something. So (most) responses (those different from the proposal) need to be substantiated and backed with arguments.
Also, that time limit allows everyone to be heard and gives the others time to think about what was said. i.e. we were all going down the dev route as part of this proposal, including me advocating for the cap solution, but after doing my calculations following @dfunk comment it became apparent that there is a much easier approach to solving our dev funding issues that allow us (at the same time) to utilize all on-chain tax proceeds to the burn effort (as initially intended).

For those new to the post this is the suggested new approach:

On discord you end up with too much white noise to the point where you need to create dedicated channels to have a meaningful conversation or start using locks and mods for their management. Can be done without it, but need a lot of time to get to an understanding with everyone in the channel.


Anyone know if whitelisting is a requirement to continue burns?

Yes in general, but 50/50 is not acceptable.

I would say - revert burn tax to 1.2%, and 90% burn / 10%CP.
We would burn more and fund more to CP at the same time than in 0.2%@50/50 scenario.
It’s better to have 10% from 1.2% than 50% from 0.2%.

The previous (1.2%) burn tax ratio had slight (almost none) impact to on-chain transactions comparing to 0% tax (please do not compare volume when LUNA colsapsed, becasuse it’s not authoritative).
The current (0.2%) burn tax ratio had a significant impact on the number of LUNC burned, but had slight (I wolud say none) impact on on-chain transactions volume comparing to 1.2% tax - it did not increase.

If You agree to combine this three changes with all of Your proposals,I wolud say it would be great compromise and You have my full support. And if You do not agree with above, I would like to hear arguments, why it’s bad idea.

1 Like

A proposal for this has been created here: [Proposal] Deprecate Seigniorage Reward Policy and Increase Gas Fees by 5x


pure theft of the good will of others , its what seniorage MINT is.
Burn is Burn its not ment to be minted, there is a reason gas fees are there and block rewards


happy new year!
I think your cap idea is interesting, and it could be integrated into the reward policy parameters,
“reward_policy”: {
“rate_min”: “0.900000000000000000”,
“rate_max”: “0.900000000000000000”,
“cap”: {
“denom”: “unused”,
“amount”: “0”
as you can see the cap is currently unused.
@dfunk this sounds like a good solution in general, but i think the numbers maybe off? I think the amount being collected in fees includes the 0.2% tax. From what I am seeing from scraping the chain, it is much much less.
@Atom1 yes there are 2 things binance wants, one is that their voluntary burns are not reminted via seigniorage and the other is the whitelisting of their wallets from the on-chain tax.

1 Like

Do you happen to have an order of magnitude of accumulation over a week using the Tx fees excluding tax-based proceeds? To be honest with you I gave up on the cap idea in favor of the fee increase, it feels like the natural way of doing this and is future-proof. So, maybe we need to rework the increase rate.
For a low-volume week, I got down to a monthly collection of 75M (that excludes noticeable big jumps in the CP allocation due to remint). That’s circa 375M per month on low volume with an x5 increase in tx fees!


When can we vote for this proposal on terra station?

due to discussions and alternatives, we are refining the proposal. It has definitely evolved since we started. Good news is that the L1 team has a hot fix for the upgrade handlers now, so we can look into parameterizing the splits, and/or also look into creating a second burn wallet that is exempt from seigniorage. See the hotfix here. A new discussion will be forthcoming in the next few days.


Great sir. Please also consider whitelist Binance’s wallets. Thanks

Hello @ek826,
Are you guys going to abandon the hard coded changes to the antehandler since the community pool funding has been achieved via the x5 gas hike. It seems that according to your roadmap - it is still on the table?
If you plan to go ahead with changes - do you have any mkre news if all of this will be controlled by governance vote.
Also did you manage to reach some kind of agreement with TR over the repository to avoid adding time and effort costs ?
Best Regards!