What is done with transaction fees on Polkadot in this moment: [1000000315] What I’m proposing is that issuing DOT through inflation to cover expenses and then burning the income from fees is functionally equivalent to a direct transfer of value from users to validators and other network-supporti…

I’ve been considering this for a while, and I believe it’s a reasonable next step following RFC#10 , especially with Referendum 1271 set to execute soon, which will establish a fixed inflow to the Treasury. There’s a clear trade-off between allowing the Treasury to accumulate more funds and externali…

[image] jonas: Referendum 1271 Thanks Jonas for the response. Indeed, if the treasury is going to have a fixed income with Referendum 1271, adding the fees would be something like double financing. I completely agree with keeping 20% for validators and collators for including transactions. …

I’m also in favor of modifying the current allocation of fees once #1271 is live & running.

I absolutely agree with you ser

What is the difference between burning and not inflating (as much) in the first place? I know with less inflation there’s less (coin issuance-wise) to arbitrarily spend, but that inflation doesn’t create any value itself. It’s only an appearance of riches, while everyone is being watered down. As …

It seems that this approach is also a direction many are considering. Why not take it a step further by combining this mechanism with some operational directions and marketing strategies to maximize its impact? I have detailed explanations here and welcome further discussion: How To Make Polkadot Gr…

Of course, the difference is that regardless of the inflation rate there is (we could not be so radical in lowering inflation because we did not know the possible consequences) burning the fees relieves the burden on the holders since it reduces net inflation thanks to the users.

I agree but we have to go step by step and each thing in isolation to guarantee that the community can choose something specific more easily, don’t you think? I would like to do a WFC, about this. What do you think?

Okay, point taken, I see its merits in practical sense (as it relates to how the community works). I’d only note another way of thinking is “won’t inflate, because we don’t know the possible consequences”. Central banks aim to inflate (e.g. 2% a year) and then fiddle with “policies” (interest rates…

DOT could even at a given point become deflationary, obviously it wouldn’t be something that would happen consistently only when fees burned exceed inflation. What we have seen happen with ETH a few times.

Burning transaction fees generated on Relay Chain and System Chains like Asset Hub (Plaza soon)

Governance

ultracoconut November 23, 2024, 8:50pm 16

Topic		Replies	Views
[WFC]-Proposal to Burn a Portion of Transaction Fees on the Relay Chain and System Chains (This is a draft. Not executed yet) Governance	32	1130	December 16, 2024
Looking someone could help me to create WFC proposal Miscellaneous kusama	4	496	November 23, 2024
How To Make Polkadot Great Again? Governance	4	482	July 6, 2026
Economic Reform Proposal for DOT token "XCV" Ecosystem	0	118	July 31, 2025
Dr Wood: please read this msg from Ethereum Community Foundation Suggestions treasury , ethereum , decentralized-future	3	418	July 3, 2025

Burning transaction fees generated on Relay Chain and System Chains like Asset Hub (Plaza soon)

Related topics