Hi! I consider as unlock team did the effort to create a function that collect fees for the dao that later can be used to swap and burn tokens and reduce the supply we should activate and try it! I consider that 1% is a nice number to start and fair!
What do you think?
In a few days I will open the proposal in snapshot to measure the temperature of this proposal
Thanks!
Hello David,
I think it’s a really great idea, the fee is added to the main unlock contract alread (0xe79B93f8E22676774F2A8dAd469175ebd00029FA).
Also i think you should open a snapshot too.
Regards,
Important reference here in the “Make a DAO Proposal” section of the readme file if you scroll down that has documentation on process, formatting, and related topics.:
Hi!
Tomorrow I will create a snapshot to measure the temperature of this proposal and see its feasibility to present the proposal in tally.
The fee collector function is something that future locker owners can disable?
With ucollect.me (uses unlock protocol), we promote our project to be 0% fees for NFT Membership creators. Adding this fee could be really problematic for us, if users cannot disable it.
I would also appreciate an answer to this question:
Can Unlock-Protocol lock owners (SmartContract managers) disable the “Collect Fees Feature”?
In the way it is currently implemented, a fee would be taken on every (paid) transaction. Think of it in the same way that you can think about gas fees. It’s the “cost” to maintain the smart contracts…
That said, the fee is currently 0. Unless someone adds a proposal to change that, OR the majority of token holders vote against the fee, it will remain 0.
Finally it should be possible for anyone in the community to create a new protocol upgrade that makes this fee optional/disabled by lock managers.
Think of it in the same way that you can think about gas fees.
Gas fees are not a % of value as what is being discussed here. If I send 0.001 ETH same gas fee if I send 1,000 ETH.
It’s the “cost” to maintain the smart contracts…
I’m not sure I would agree with this. A SmartContract, once deployed, may not need any “maintenance” to have viable functionality for many, many years.
To be clear, I am not opposed to a 1% “Sustainability Tax” and I think this is a much better thing to call it, because it is more descriptive of intended functionality … “maintenance” as you called it.
What I am opposed to is taking this 1% and using it to burn $UDT. I am normally not a fan of burn mechanics especially with a static token supply of only 1M $UDT.
I made a Discord Forum Post:
Unlock Protocol ‘Sustainability Tax’ (1%) + sUDT (staked UDT)
1% split 3 ways:
no UDT burn mechanism
1% split 4 ways:
with UDT burn mechanism
The $sUDT + dividend mechanism will encourage and reward those who #HODL UDT.
You are correct. I did not mean it’s the perfectly identical, but it is a fee that gets paid on every transaction, just like gas. That’s what I meant.
I strongly disagree with this. The idea that any software system does not need maintenance is a very optimistic one. I don’t know of any system that was deployed and stayed relevant without requiring maintenance. The protocol will always evolve to support new patterns and mechanisms introduced by other actors in the ecosystem, be it L2, wallets, etc…
I am not sure I understand why the amount of tokens matters? Whether there 1M or just 1 token, it will burn a relative portion on the price of these tokens (which have 18 decimals… so that can be cut in very small pieces!
I will “go on the record now” that if the Collect Fees Proposal + UDT Buyback / Burn Mechanism goes into effect this, IMO, is violating US Securities laws as I understand them.
OP: Discord
Also, please do not take my word on this topic … here is a post on Farcaster from David Kerr, a crypto legal expert, said …
3) Buybacks are unproductive use of capital and likely prohibited under federal law.
Source: Warpcast