Deleted thread <<remove>>

Thread is scheduled to be deleted.

6 Likes

Misspelled STABLE coins.

the Highlight of the transaction fee burn for me has always been the possibility that it could totally offset the staking rewards for no dilution and provide a pool to allow staking rewards beyond current projections

This proposal would obviously be a set back against those outlooks

Given network growth expectations, staking utilization projections, when would this non dilution point occur without this proposal Implemented and what is the additional impact of this proposal on those concerns?

2 Likes

corrected thanks , ^^

I see your “potential” increased usage point But you circular reference still leads to increased dilution for Zil over current model

And the passive income you refer to is for gZil holders. Who may or may not be Zil holders.

Lots of trying to get benefits to gZil at the expense of Zil it still seems to me

Thanks for clarifying those points. Your winning me over. :grinning:

2 Likes

Would this proposal cause Gzil or even zil to be viewed as a security by the SEC or any other government body? The bonded Gzil sounds like a security to me.

1 Like

Perhaps. However ignite Dao is pushing for this proposal to pass as they said they would incorporate it into their legal Dao which I’d already certified and legal. There shouldn’t be any problem

1 Like

Also, treasury is not used in the term of traditional finance.

I would refer to this link >> What is treasury? | The Association of Corporate Treasurers for what goal is trying to be pursued with this proposal.

Think Relationship: Zilliqa Capital (Treasury) > Zilliqa ; The Governance Treasury > DAO

~thank you for allowing me to clarify my intent btw, great points*

Voted for. But I think the % instead of 20%, can be raised to 40-50% and possible even higher.

The reason is simple, when #Gzil was distributed to stakers, it was considered an additional 13-30% apr at some point in time and that didn’t affect the inflation and caused gZil price to increase.

This means that the little burning as compared to staking issuance impacted the price at the minimal.

The full use of the burned #Zil instead of circulating back to rewards is very miniscule for now until we have millions of #Zil burn per day.

1 Like

I completely agree with this.

1 Like

Hello! Good to see new proposals coming in. Keep it coming! But an important note to add here is that its good to also include an execution plan and see how viable it is. If you submit a plan think of (1) What resources are needed, (2) which parties need to be included, (3) how difficult is it to implement, (4) If its too difficult, how can it be simplified?, (5) How to maximise the chances of it succeeding? In other words, execution is also a very important part. In other words, execution is also a very important part.

Let’s keep iterating and improving to make proposals as robust as possible:)

Having a legalized DAO taking over this project gives a different perspective:

  1. The direction of the DAO changing in the future is unpredictable as the source of inspiration is community-based. Unless my understanding should be corrected.

  2. The time that may take the organization to implement vs their business model (Basically priorities, I noted a Tweet from Milan that it’s parallel with Torch Wallet but the resource will be dispersed, and I find it hard to see it running side by side)

  3. All legal, terms and conditions carry by the organization are double-edged. (Could be seen as centralized, or easily CUT off by “authorities” when a need to basis arise.)

As the original recycling process of all fees were sequenced by Zilliqa core team on sending 100% of burned transactions to Zilliqa Address zil1qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq9yf6pz | ViewBlock

I propose the Treasury to be written as such:

  • 100% of all burned transactions sent to zil1qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq9yf6pz as usual.

  • At a certain block time equating to 1 week, the % of burned fees based on Sliding Scale *Revision 10.18.21 ~ v.ZillinkPower101010 be rewarded to the new Treasury Contract. This is like how staking is rewarded every 2200 blocks.

  • At a random block time based on a range, the contract market buys on Zilswap.io a certain % via a Dollar cost averaging method. Example, every 300 - 500 block time (or randomized block time within a timeframe), the contract buys 5-10% of the supply on: ZilSwap (Zil/gZil pair) This also prevents extreme volatility and massive arbitrage opportunist from timing the buys extensively.

  • If possible, at the periodical end of the purchase based on snapshot, #gZil holders get to claim the rewards on the Treasury like a @Zilswap claim or Staking claim.

  • The snapshot rewards should exclude the following addresses to avoid double-tapping or unclaimable rewards.

A. Zilswap gzil/zil liquidity address
B. DevPillar gZil deposited address
C. Non-claimable smart contracts like bridged gZil in the future to ETH/BSC/NEO network etc
D. Any future DEX that uses gZil as a pairing address

Well, these are my theoretical ideas. Appreciate the core team’s comments and seeing if these ideas are feasible.

2 Likes

This has been updated to the best of my ability as of 10.18.21 I am welcome to more feedback. TY ^^

1 Like

IWhen appropriate, if admin could reach out, I am able to provide address with sufficient gZil amount needed to move on to snapshot portal posting. Thank You

1 Like

Hi zcapitalist,

First of all, thanks for your proposal.

As Milan already pointed out I wanted to emphasize the need of an unpredictable and quite frequent “buy trigger” to keep volatility low and prevent any exploits.
An alternative to use random block times, the continuous volatility in transactions could be used so that a swap is automatically done in case the to be spent ZIL amount is e.g. 20x higher than the last swap-contract call fee.

I desperately hope that the core team proactively comments on your proposal soon, as otherwise the whole idea of utilizing GZIL as governance is getting useless.
You can have as much “voting power” as you want… you cannot change anything in case there is no developer implementing the changes :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

1 Like

Also, I do not have the ability to Edit the proposal further at this time. But if it were to be implemented, this is something the core team would have to address/tweak tbf.

I like the broad aims of this proposal, I’m trying to think of what downsides there might be and I must admit, my brain is a bit overloaded right now. It would help if each step - which look well thought out to me, could have more explanatory detail on the expected practical outcomes, and then the overall benefit to each member of the community of gZil holders, in terms of making gZil more important, and also more rare, thus preserving and enhancing its value without a greed factor. It’s a long term value enhancement proposition if it is done right.
thanks
Catwth

2 Likes

Isn’t it true that ZIL from transactions fees are not currently “burned” but rather deposited/recirculated into the rewards pool for future payout to stakers? My understanding is that this is generative of the circular economy. Please correct me if mistaken, but I do not believe ZIL is currently burned as you write. That implies the supply is reducing each transaction that occurs. This seems false to me.

1.5 - 2 months time frame will not be feasible. We have our last big upgrade for v8.1 and it will be a few more months before the next scheduled upgrade. In fact, many our of features are usually planned 6 months in advance. Also, we are nearing the festive season where our manpower is usually low.

Given the current manpower within the team and the required resources, it will be closer to 5-6 months considering there are many moving parts involved. This includes the automation of purchase of gZIL in timely fashion + reporting mechanism for transparency purposes.

2 Likes