Thanks for raising this regarding naming conventions.
Would be good to publicise this further for full transparency.
Update: Pushed this on our socials - https://twitter.com/SimplyStaking/status/1597230047555121152 - feel free to retweet.
1 Like
This whole thing is a NO for meā¦ Iāve noticed no one has brought up the issue of timeā¦ How long is this funding measure going to take. If this is obviously one of the main differences with the proposed tax vs inflation debate. Applying this tax will simply take too long. Whatās more, no one has even addressed the fact that this would demand a major slow down of the application of Atom 2.0. Almost as if the whole point of this is to cement a massive pause on the implementation of Atom 2.0 without having to say so upfront. So NO!
This is mentioned here:
and also elsewhere in the thread.
As for:
It will take time to fill up the community pool, but that time can be used to develop a collective roadmap and standards on how weād like to see the pool used. Also, thereāre currently funds in the pool that could jump-start this process by funding a dedicated group to work on next steps.
Even toward the end of the ATOM 2.0 debate the WP authors changed the proposal to reflect community pool tax increase instead of mint.
Regardless, thanks for sharing your thoughts here and looking forward to seeing what others have to say as well.
1 Like
That is a good idea when you put it that way.
1 Like
I think it needs to be more clear about the use of the community pool, for example, 4 million token a year, every month is more than 300,000 token, how this monthly token is used, whether it needs to continue to draw tax from the stakers if it is not used up, since the funds come from the stakers, how to return to the stakers after use, if there can be such a positive cycle, I think any stakers support cosmos ecological pools, but if the ecology doesnāt bring any return to the stakers, then why should they do that? In fact, community pools are also distributed funds, and if we can actively build it and support the cycle, we can expand the ecology and increase the return
1 Like
Hi @tusiki, regarding your point relating to how funds can return to stakers and how it can bring value to stakers. The community pool is there for the stakers and is controlled ultimately by the stakers to drive value to the Hub and return the value back to those stakers.
3 Likes
Honestly have a feel we are making some of the same mistakes that were made with 82 on this. A lot of those here in this forum already agree on this. Those that donāt frequent the forums (majority) probably have no idea of the consensus here and theyāll suddenly see a prop with a big change attached.
Hey @yoda, actually in this particular case we had a strong community effort to boost awareness on the community tax proposal prior to the on-chain voting.
Besides the discussion here on the forum, the Community Tax proposal was also one of the solution provided by the community during the Atom 2.0 debate and appointed in the Atom 2.1 draft.
-
In the last weeks the discussion of the Community Tax proposal happened on Telegram in the community governance channel, where the forum thread is pinned.
-
We had a Cosmos Hub Twitter Space discussing the Community Tax draft last week.
-
Polls on Twitter to hear the community sentiment have been shared by validators, in particular Cosmostation and Adriana from KalpaTech.
-
Most of Cosmos Hub Validators have been reached to share feedback on the proposals prior to the on-chain voting.
I think it is very important to increase the interaction with the community prior to the on-chain voting period and in this particular case I definitely see that efforts have been made in the right direction.
But we definitely have to keep improve the interaction with the community with proposals draft, so if you have any feedbacks on what we can do to involve more community members to participate in the forum discussion, feel free to share it.
1 Like
As a ānormal userā, I think the wording in the proposal is important. And first to have the link to the forum (itās often not posted, for example no link in the prop 82) as there is there often most answers to questions we may have on the proposal. But also a bit more explanation on the reasoning / discussions
For example in my opinion two clear proposals :
- Adan non profit : Keplr Dashboard
- No with veto : Keplr Dashboard
2 Likes
Thanks for this Will, please note weāll be doing some edits to the proposal you see above in the coming days to make sure its incorporates some of the suggestions and changes from the forum, such as yours.
1 Like
Again you still havenāt addressed the main issues of timing. All you have done is shown in the proposal that everything will take much longer than the inflationary method. There is no consideration of the impact on Atom 2.0. You show that the tax can be implemented on either a conservative figure or an exaggerated percentage. But even in the exaggerated time line the 4.2M Will be generated in a year, so what about another tranche? How long will it take to generate three or four tranches? In the long run 4.9M is not a lot, and wonāt be as helpful as you think. Generating the funds would take 5 years and up. You havenāt discussed and seem to have completely overlooked that the delivery on Atom 2.0 full feature suite would take another 10 maybe 15 years. Thatās why itās a NO! . The other issue is this seemingly surreptitious method of slowing do Atom 2.0. It seems underhanded/perfidious. Meanwhile, we continue inflating away our valueā¦
@hush it is unclear what your issue is with timing. What is the rush? from what I last saw, the approximation for tranches was 10x 4mmATOM/year.
Which, at 10% TAX would be >4mmATOM/yearā¦
There isnt even a proposal to spend the current community pool funds.
what is it that is being slowed down?
There is no coherent atom 2.0 proposal that has been made widely available.
what do you mean when you say atom 2.0? what necessary feature suite are you referring to?
Are you really that unclear about atom 2.0? This is the link to the Cosmos prop 82 proposal. Interchain Explorer by Cosmostation
All elements in the proposal will be drastically slowed. Atom 2.0 could be delivered relatively quickly, if not for an allocator that would take anywhere between 3-5 years to fund, slowing the rest of the project to a crawl. Please note that some elements of the Cosmos community donāt wish for a atom 2.0 implementation while the majority do. As shown by the majority YES vote on prop 82 and the censuring by way of VETO deposit burn of a successful prop.
1 Like
prop82 was voted down. & yes, i am very unclear about atom 2.0.
How do you know it will take 3-5 years to fund the allocator? where are you pulling your numbers from?
The overwhelming consensus even by the authors was that prop82 needed to be amended past v.2.
you are emphatically arguing for an obsolete iteration of an unclear concept.
What makes the allocator necessary for 2.0?
If you read the prop 82 proposal, you would know why the funding the allocator is necessary(because inflation would fall to about 1%, other than the Tranches, there is no other way to fund necessary projects).
If you read this proposal you would know where I got the 3-5 year timeline (Using taxes at a high proposed tax rate we would have 4.2M per year. Similar to a tranche. Proposal 82 wanted between 2-4 tranches. Because of how math works, that is about 5 years if funded through taxes).
As for your Atom 2.0 was voted down comment. NWV is meant to strip out bad actors and spam proposals. The minority used NWV to put down a proposal with a majority yes vote, with a 33.4% minority. I donāt think that is how NWV was meant to be used.
why would inflation spontaneously reduce to 1%?
the allocator is just a bunch of DAOs and councils? It sounds like the allocator is all about bootstrapping chains that havent gone through the natural selection of bear markets. is 2.0 about funding new growth throughout the ecosystem or to bail out chains that cant handle the normal stresses of a bear market?
OMG read the Proposal! READ the proposal!! READ THE GODDAMNED PROPOSAL!!! Prop 82ā¦ Read itā¦
i am, its why i asked the previous questions. the allocator section talks about buying a ton of LSDs to bootstrap AMM pools and āincentive alignā participantsā¦
It has bullet points that talk about funding LSDs, oR funding chains despite their unproven market utility, are artificially funded by delegators which results in those same delegators loosing their staking rewardsā¦
Hey @Hush, thank you for sharing your concerns and participate in the forum discussion.
The Community Tax proposal is born from the intent of the main parties involved in the Atom 2.0 debate to reach a meeting point.
The Proposal doesnāt aim to follow the Atom 2.0 tranche model, but mainly to reinforce an underfunded community pool.
As shown in the draft the Cosmos Hub community pool is currently not competitive compared to the Cosmos ecosystem standard, especially in relation with the market cap of Atom.
Even Stargaze a project with a much lower market cap valuation has a more competitive community pool.
The community pool represents the stakers and the ability of the community to fund multiple initiatives that bring value back to the Hub.
Especially for what the Cosmos Hub aim to achieve with Interchain Security and also to maintain a leading position in the Cosmos Ecosystem, having a strong community pool is necessary.
Regarding slowing inflation, this can be addressed once the Cosmos Hub will have protocol revenue, you canāt remove inflation until there is a form of alternative revenue.
Interchain Security is a first step to create a new form of revenue for stakers that is not Atom inflation, by incrementing alternative revenue we will be able to scale towards lowering inflation. But this will take time and adoption.
In terms of adoption will be important to have a community pool capable to invest to create more protocol revenue.
Increasing the community tax is a first step towards achieving future goals.
I hope that this message clarify some of your concerns.
I understand that this proposal doesnāt seem to follow the Atom 2.0 tranche model. It seems to me this proposal was setup to completely oppose the Atom 2.0 model.
You speak of a way to generate revenue via Interchain Security. What about MEV? I say that because Interchain Security may evolve into Mesh Security in the future and MEV is another avenue for revenue. I donāt think IS will always be a Cosmos(atom) exclusive product.
If the community plans on moving past an Inflationary model, these are the type of products we will need and hampering Atom 2.0 with an extended timeline is not in the communityās best interest.