I would fully support an increase in gas fees. They have not been adjusted to account for the fall in the token’s price and are way below where they should be, IMHO. DCF would be happy to lead on a proposal to raise gas fees, with the goal being to burn a portion (TBD) of those. I personally think this would be much more impactful than the “burn 1 BLD approach” that was the subject of the signalling proposal. (Mind you, I’m not being critical of that effort, simply saying we’d get more bang for our efforts with the gas increase + burn). Thoughts??
6 Likes
Is there any chance we could see some numbers/modeling?
Increased gas + burn sounds like a good idea.
I support burning BLD and, more broadly, any ideas aimed at taking BLD out of circulation.
@dtribble @ricDCF Why not just respect the on-chain vote? The moment an on-chain vote is ignored, the whole premise of decentralized governance is undermined. If decisions can override the community’s vote, then what is the purpose of voting in the first place?
Sorry but your proposal is good for nothing. Only few people support you here.
2 Likes
So the blog is more important than on chain vote?
Why do you draw that conclusion? Did your proposal receive network-wide consensus support and then get rejected?
Hello @Jericho .
Jericho, prop 118 was signalling vote. The design is to put your idea forward more formally than a discussion, to gauge community support. Any parameter or mechanism changes that one proposes in a signal vote are not binding if the vote passes. It’s not to say that the vote isn’t valid or important, because it is, and it should be respected by the community.
This was never about respecting the vote or ignoring it. We read the result as a clear ask to reduce circulating supply. Ric had posted his thoughts, which have gone unengaged with for a while now.
The disagreement is only about how. Gas fees are below where they should be after the price drop. Raising them and burning a portion hits the same goal with more burn per transaction than a flat 1 BLD, and it has to be built regardless, so we’d like the community to consider to build the stronger version.
I’ll give you this - it’s moving slower than we’d all like. DCF is reprioritizing our viewpoint and formulating our proposal as an expansion of the ideas Ric laid out on April 13.
2 Likes
Thanks for the clarification.
My main concern is actually not whether burning 1 BLD per claim or increasing gas fees is the better mechanism.
My concern is the timeline.
The signaling vote passed quite a while ago and everyone seems to agree that reducing circulating supply and improving tokenomics is desirable. Yet months later we are still discussing alternatives instead of seeing execution.
In crypto, speed matters. Markets move fast, communities lose momentum, and opportunities disappear.
If there is broad agreement on the objective, then the question becomes: what is preventing action? Why does it take so long to move from community signaling to implementation?
From the outside, it sometimes feels like we spend more time discussing than executing, and that may be a bigger issue than which specific burn mechanism is ultimately chosen.
1 Like
I understand your concern about the velocity of development of chain features that affect the layers below the SwingSet VM. To be honest, coming up with a deflationary design that is compatible with existing clients that submit transactions required solving longstanding issues with the existing fee model that were not obvious to me.
The chain upgrade that’s currently in progress focuses on moving to Cosmos SDK v0.53. After that significant upgrade rolls out, we should be able to get back to quality-of-life improvements (like these deflationary features) that are possible to make with less risk. The v0.53 upgrade needed a high level of care since it has such a large impact on the integration of our VM layer with Cosmos SDK.