Hi @CryptoWing , thanks for all of your concerns. This is Justin at Edge and Node. I work on protocol economics and tokenomics.
First and foremost, this GIP was never meant to offend anyone. I am sorry if it did. Furthermore, the enviornment of pseudoanonyminity makes it difficult for anyone to know, who-knows-what, so Howard’s calculation was in good faith and was not intended to offend anyone. I have misstepped in the past by assuming my audience had more information than it actually did so we (Howard and I) try make sure we lay all the cards on the table.
Secondly, I want to reiterate to the community that the GIP process is a way for core-devs and protocol contributors to get feedback from the community. It is not an end-all-be-all, one-and-done type of deal. In fact, the best version of the process is iterative in which the GIP evolves until we reach some type of consensus (of throw it out). That is to say, this conversation is helpful.
Finally, you bring up good points about query fee burn and tokenomics and I agree with your mental model as a “tax as a payment…”. Bottom line is, we don’t know the right long term balance (again, which is why this conversation is helpful!). However, our current thinking is that right now we are doing everything we can to grow the network (which leads to token appreciation through an increase in token demand) and have been working to improve the outcomes for those that drive that growth, namely indexers and consumers.
Nevertheless, this conversation is helpful in knowing what others think about the relevant short-run/long-run tradeoffs and we welcome more discussion.
Hi Justin, thanks for your elaboration and answer.
First and foremost, this GIP was never meant to offend anyone. I am sorry if it did.
Thank you for recognizing this, but it does make me concerned that the team is a bit out of touch with the community outside of the consumers.
However, our current thinking is that right now we are doing everything we can to grow the network (which leads to token appreciation through an increase in token demand) and have been working to improve the outcomes for those that drive that growth, namely indexers and consumers.
And I wholeheartedly support this direction that you guys are going for. However, making a GIP that suddenly makes 3rd party curators obsolete and changing protocol tokenomics that long term supporters believe in is not the right way.
I do not support this GIP unless an alternative signalling mechanism has been decided/implemented. It seems weird to change the status quo when you don’t have an alternative in place. I do agree curation currently is somewhat ineffective, but the way this GIP is trying to make it obsolete seems weird and abrupt.
I also think that this GIP should be separated for the curation fees part and the query fee tax part. And each of them should be given a thorough economic analysis on the impacts it may bring to the protocol.
Query fee tax is the only payment that consumers give to all GRT holders equally. I also don’t think that anyone using the protocol is disadvantaged by having a deflationary GRT tokenomics and stronger token price appreciation.
All good points. You also make a good point above that this does fit naturally with GIP-0058. We need to think through sequencing at the very least but bottom line, this discussion has been very helpful.
totally agree your opinion on the incentives of Curator and curation. removing the fees of curators is a way to improve the mechanism. and if we forward to the more deep, imo honesty we can replace manual operations with programmable methods. but it’s a other topic. i’ll try to expand this idea as a new post, and include the reward mechanism problem.