| 19 Nov 2020 |
|  Ronald (Telegram) joined the room. | 20:35:07 |
 Group (Telegram) | In reply to Jim (Telegram)
Another question, is the proposal for 10 klp per block already passed? No. But I just checked it's currently scheduled to pass. If you disagree with the result there are approximately two days left for voting! | 20:35:38 |
 Jim (Telegram) | I agree with that | 20:35:55 |
 Shawn Tabrizi (Telegram) | i do think that, such a spin on wording here is quite relavant for not only intention of the funds, but acceptance of the ideas. Not trying to manipulate people with word in either direction. I feel mandatory taxation puts a negative spin, specifically on the concept of ownership/entitlement of the funds | 20:36:17 |
| Group (Telegram) | In reply to Shawn Tabrizi (Telegram)
versus allowing democracy to determine the growth of council funds. I'm still thinking about this, but I think we'd require some overhual of how the rewards module is structured, but not just simply changing it to "mandatory taxation". | 20:36:31 |
| Shawn Tabrizi (Telegram) | but i might be bias based on what i think is the right solution 🙂 | 20:36:34 |
| Group (Telegram) | For example, we'd have a fixed emission number, and then set up some numbers. A portion goes to miners, the other portion goes to treasury. A portion of which is also meant to be for miners also go through the voluntary taxation process. | 20:37:14 |
|  Cryptoletico (Telegram) joined the room. | 20:37:29 |
| Ronald (Telegram) | In reply to Shawn Tabrizi (Telegram)
i do think that, such a spin on wording here is quite relavant for not only intention of the funds, but acceptance of the ideas. Not trying to manipulate people with word in either direction. I feel mandatory taxation puts a negative spin, specifically on the concept of ownership/entitlement of the funds Well.... We are losing a lot of coins now because of those big miners... So mandatory will be more fare. Then we can also lower tax. | 20:38:17 |
| Group (Telegram) | In reply to Ronald (Telegram)
Well.... We are losing a lot of coins now because of those big miners... So mandatory will be more fare. Then we can also lower tax. For the record, no one loses coins. Only the treasury. | 20:38:44 |
| Ronald (Telegram) | We as KLP are losing funds for treasury. | 20:39:37 |
| Shawn Tabrizi (Telegram) | but in general, what is the goal of allowing miners to do vouluntary taxation at this step? As I understand, the end goal is to fund treasury, which is the outlet for community to get paid for their contributions. If miners want to contribute, they can do so via a transfer to the treasury or participation in the processes itself. What is the rational miner thinking to want to turn on the taxation flag? | 20:39:51 |
|  salamo tarantiemplo (Telegram) joined the room. | 20:39:58 |
| Group (Telegram) | I think we may want to eventually go to an "inflation-based" process. Rather than directly just have a number saying how many coins minted each block, the democracy votes for the annual inflation rate. Then, from that we calculate the reward, and then shared by miners and treasury. That would be much easier to understand. | 20:40:23 |
| Shawn Tabrizi (Telegram) | > For the record, no one loses coins. Only the treasury.
This is imo a great example of the wording issue here. taxation does not well represent the code | 20:40:26 |
| Shawn Tabrizi (Telegram) | But maybe, can we take a step back from implementation. is there a short summary of what you want to achieve in terms of the balance between miner rewards and treasury funding? | 20:41:12 |
| Shawn Tabrizi (Telegram) | and is there something you want to achieve in terms of miners directly participating in the treasury funding? | 20:41:23 |
| Ronald (Telegram) | A lot of klp is lost because of big miners.. I think it's better that every miner pays tax then only us who voluntary do | 20:41:52 |
| Group (Telegram) | In reply to Shawn Tabrizi (Telegram)
but in general, what is the goal of allowing miners to do vouluntary taxation at this step? As I understand, the end goal is to fund treasury, which is the outlet for community to get paid for their contributions. If miners want to contribute, they can do so via a transfer to the treasury or participation in the processes itself. What is the rational miner thinking to want to turn on the taxation flag? As you know we came from the PoW no-pre-mine community. Historically those communities have high resistance towards dev fees. That was why originally we implemented "voluntary taxation" rather than just "taxation" (dev fee). I do not know how much that matters right now. | 20:41:53 |
| Ronald (Telegram) | With treasury we can pay people and pay for services | 20:42:41 |
| Ronald (Telegram) | I'm mining since November 2019 and I'm ok with tax. It's a bit high... But that can be adjusted too | 20:43:43 |
| Ronald (Telegram) | But have no problems with it, because it's for something usefull | 20:44:09 |
| Shawn Tabrizi (Telegram) | @Sepkuh just to make sure you are fully in the loop, the way taxation works is not that you give up any funds. your take home as a miner does not change whether you enable or disable the taxation. the only different is whether you "allow" some amount of klp to also be minted into the treasury | 20:44:36 |
| Group (Telegram) | In reply to Shawn Tabrizi (Telegram)
and is there something you want to achieve in terms of miners directly participating in the treasury funding? It was meant to be something that makes the treasury accountable. So using miner-initiated voluntary taxation, they have a choice if they think the treasury is mal-functioning. The same for coin-holder-initiated voluntary taxation. The goal is to have referendum voted repeatedly to see if coin holders still approve the current treasury budget. | 20:44:45 |
| Ronald (Telegram) | Like the 10klp proposal now... I think it's too soon and to low for now. | 20:44:55 |
| Group (Telegram) | But I guess you can accomplish the same thing by a) have mandatory taxation, b) the taxation rate automatically "expires" to 0%, c) new democracy vote needed to reset the taxation rate back to normal level. | 20:45:53 |
| Ronald (Telegram) | In reply to Group (Telegram)
It was meant to be something that makes the treasury accountable. So using miner-initiated voluntary taxation, they have a choice if they think the treasury is mal-functioning. The same for coin-holder-initiated voluntary taxation. The goal is to have referendum voted repeatedly to see if coin holders still approve the current treasury budget. That's all ok, but there needs to be a good alternative to fund treasury. Where everyone is happy with | 20:46:01 |
| Shawn Tabrizi (Telegram) | > have a choice if they think the treasury is mal-functioning
I acknowledge that checks and balances here are good, so intention i agree with, but i would argue they already have a voice by their choice to mine at all | 20:46:30 |
| Shawn Tabrizi (Telegram) | if a miner feels the treasury, and thus the overall governance of the chain isnt quite working, they could choose to stop mining | 20:46:54 |
| Group (Telegram) | With locked mining they actually make a commitment, and have many incentives to participate in governance. | 20:47:14 |
