There was desire from the community to find funding that doesn’t alter the emission schedule and where the community has more control over the release-of-funds. This culminated in agreement to explore alternative methods to the mint.
While the MEV concepts outlined in the whitepaper were exciting, there is still a ton of R&D needed around cross-chain MEV. So, it’s not something that would be built overnight regardless of the passing of this or any other proposal. AFAIK, skip protocol is already helping test out and iterate on the cross-chain MEV thesis throughout the ecosystem, and fair block is also working on MEV via encryption (front-running prevention) and will use ICS.
Rather than charging forward at full speed toward the ATOM 2.0 vision, we can work on sense-making and understanding the collective’s opinion about what to implement and how to go about doing it. In the long-run we will all benefit from this approach. At the very least, it honors the many voices in the community that encouraged a more methodical approach to researching and implementing (or not) components of the ATOM 2.0 paper. But, that probably deserves it’s own thread…
Just to clarify your point - this proposal was not setup to oppose ATOM 2.0 or any other form of prior proposal. This was setup to be a unity response to the opposing views when it came to funding the Hub.
We felt that this proposed way was the least controversial and that the majority can get behind.
Currently atom has just one use case. It is an on/off ramp for the cosmos ecosystem. Osmosis(osmo) is being listed on both CEX and DEX, so in a short while Cosmos(atom) is going to lose its one use case. Cosmos(atom) has always had this major/massive problem, it is not a hub and has no utility. Without a utility, people will soon realize that it is redundant/vestigial.
Even you see that we need a new model or you wouldn’t be so all in on Interchain Security. Which is also untested, something brand new. You are willing to charge forward with IS, all I am suggesting is we have a backup in the form of MEV. Just in case something changes/doesn’t work out the way we would like. Atom 2.0 is the next step and I think we must move towards it meaningfully.
I do not think I am lobbying for anyone. I just wish for a fair system that everyone gets behind so we can move forward in an attempt to bring utility to the hub.
The tranche model and the community tax model share their similarities. A tranche of 4M would have been minted every 12 months. The community pool with the increased tax would get roughly 4.2M per 12 months.
The wording in prop 82 was, “10 tranches of 4M ATOMs may be issued to the Treasury at any time per ATOM holder vote”. Where did you get the idea that the Tranches would be every 12 months?
Do you understand now why this 5 year tax raise is unacceptable?
And note the community pool is not empty at this point in time. So we have some funds to bridge the period until the new community tax is implemented and fills the community pool at a high pace.
Just seeing this comment…I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “an incentive not to fund from the pool”, what I mean is that the tax would go to the pool, not sure how this would disincentive funding from the pool. If the tax are dynamic and increases were incremental, I don’t think voters would even notice, especially of the benefits are reflected in the price of ATOM. Just my option though. Hope I understood your statement.
Underrated comment. IMO the words are number one reason for voting yes / no - not the meaning, alas. We need to learn to simplify what we are trying to say
This video has muted comments, so people can’t see what critics of the proposal would say. There is no consensus on the rate of the Taxes. These taxes would lower delegators APR. None of this seems to be thought out. All this video has done is shown limitations of this proposal.
Meanwhile an inflation would simply generate the exact amount that would be needed in the community pool. No extended tax periods, no need for a static or dynamic rate. The funds would be immediately usable.
I see you have adjusted the proposal to no longer be at odds with Atom 2.0. I like the changes and rather this proposition. Removing the contentious comments and separating this proposal from prop 82’s tranches make it a, “do until”, rather than a override of the Atom 2.0 funding. This I can vote yes on.
I am in agreement with this proposal as although 2% to 10% tax change is a considerable jump, I consider it a less radical change than what was previously proposed.
It will also cement some solidarity within the Cosmos hub, and represent a positive trajectory as we move forward in a careful and considered manner rather than trying to achieve too much at once.
So your grand plan for MEV is to have another chain build out and test Cross Chain MEV. Then what? When it is successfully implemented, swoop in and integrate it on Cosmos Hub? You obviously haven’t thought this through.
ICS can be so great for Hub