What a wonderful post. Thank you for caring enough to formally start this conversation.
@Damien A front loaded community tax that’s dynamic and goes down over the next several years makes sense to us too. If it’s automated and decided ahead of time vs governance votes down the road it might make the most sense. You said, “having to raise taxes more than once in the short-to-medium term wouldn’t sit well with people hence why a proposed 10% was floated around. Wouldn’t it be best to again, front load the pool and then reduce to accommodate?” We agree completely, but worry that 10% up front is unpalatable too.
The concern with going up to 10% is that it’s a 500% tax increase from current levels and that large of an increase on a percentage basis won’t taste good to those who oppose the idea. It’s an easy way to attack and one that proponents of a 10% tax should be prepared to defend.
@Instafinanzas made the point that managing those funds must be discussed too. @FrancescoSVC also said, “A lot of work still needs to be done around deploying these funds.”
So we believe some serious thought and preparation needs to go into a follow up signaling proposal or conversation. How the community pool is overseen and who directs the funds has to be largely hashed out before this community pool tax proposal hits the chain. Opponents of a higher tax or mint will use misappropriation of community pool funds as a reason to speak out.
@ala.tusz.am said, “we might ask ourselves why is the usage of the community pool so low on the chain that provides public goods for the ecosystem? Answering that question will help us further define an appropriate sized community pool for the Hub.” We agree and would love to see in-depth conversation around this.
@ebuchman said, “I’d also love to see both AiB & ICF (and other major ATOM holders!) commit resources to the community pool as well.” We’d love to see conversation around this before a tax increase proposal goes on-chain.
@BendyOne said, “I would like to see us review the tax rate at a frequency tbc to ensure we reach the target set in the initial wp within a year. If we are tracking behind tax should go up and if we are tracking ahead or the pool is not being spent then the rate should be reduced.” Love this idea.
@zaki_iqlusion said, “Teams who decide to partner with the Hub instead of being sovereign are going to need substantial amounts of bootstrapping funds and skin in the game from the ATOM stakers that will indicate likely passage of their deployment governance proposals.” As entrepreneurs who have never asked anyone for funding, we hesitate to agree. No doubt Zaki has more experience than we do, has a much better idea how much ATOM is required and we’ve not been here as long, but we’d want to know more about who controls the funds. Is it the scheduler and allocator, or some other way? If not, maybe there’s already a plan for a council that directs funds, but if there is we’re not aware of it. We’d be super cautious about conflicts of interest here. There should be a watch-dog of some kind to catch and punish back door dealing.
@Adriana said, “another solution would be to have the community pool collection tax be dynamic or at least for the community to be opened to reconsider a new adjustment of the community pool if the dynamic parameters ( Bonded ATOM and Staking APR) will suffer important changes as part of future implementation proposals.” We totally agree.
@RobbStack said, "A community tax could incentives users/stakers to participate in Defi, in particular with upcoming launch of more Liquid Staking Providers that will likely set high early incentives.
The system prevents users from tagging more than
10 people in one post so gotta break it up into 2 replies.
