you’re right, of course… not enough sleep - the thought of some transaction-spamming bots costing regular users $ aggravated me lol
[Discussion] New PRV utilities
While I agree with you that it’s better to have more input to make the proposal more convincing, I suppose that everyone who read the topic would have agreed that the current network fee is non-sense low, that’s unhealthy as network validators are rewarded by only inflated mining rewards and product market fit couldn’t also help PRV demand if the fee is super that low. Let me clarify a few points here to back the statement up:
Let’s say there are 3 main participants in Incognito: end-users, network validators and arbitrage bots. Given the 0.1 PRV network fee that is worth about 2 cents now:
I don’t think there will be any end-users complaining about the 2 cents fee they have to pay for a privacy transaction.
Network validators pay for the hardware to operate the network. Let’s only talk about storage here, because a privacy transaction takes about a couple of kilobytes compared to 300 bytes of Bitcoin transaction so Incognito chain would require much more storage space than other public blockchains, we believe transaction initiators (both end-users and bots) need to pay network validators in direct (5% of network fee as proposed) or indirect (higher PRV demand) way for the storage facility. Also, that’s true that we stated that the very low network fee is one of the advantages of Incognito, however, the current network situation is much different from what we saw 3 years ago (when you were in the team) which the storage size of the whole blockchain data is just a few gigabytes back then but it’s hundred of gigabytes now.
With the proposed fee, arbitrage bots will need to adjust their strategy to take the new network fee into account for an arbitrage transaction (rather than creating transactions aggressively for even a very small arbitrage opportunity). Actually, we used to see the bots willing to pay a very high trading fee in Incognito to compete with each other for an attractive opportunity. Please don’t get me wrong, arbitrage bots are also needed for rebalancing markets, so their existence is not always bad (and inevitable) but they have to pay fairly network validators as well.
Regarding spam prevention, let’s do some math to see the difference in the needed PRV for a spammer to flood the network per day:
Old: (86400 / 20) * 100 * 8 * 0.0000001 = 0.3456 PRV
New: (86400 / 20) * 100 * 8 * 0.1 = 345,600 PRV
Where 86400 is number of seconds per day, 20 is blocktime, 100 is max number of transactions per block, 8 is number of shards, 0.0000001 and 0.1 are old and new fees respectively. So isn’t it economical spam prevention, is it? (we would need additional methods for spam prevention for sure)
In my personal opinion, most mindful Incognito supporters would agree that increasing the network fee is needed then the more reasonable concern is what fee in PRV should we set. To be honest, we are proposing 0.1 PRV as an initial one mostly based on PRV’s current price so that the new fee won’t hurt any above participants too much. So 0.1 PRV network fee is a starting point (mostly for spam prevention) and it will be market-driven which the community won’t need to adjust regularly. Maybe only in cases of PRV price “abnormal” increase or decrease that leads to unreasonably high or low network fee in $ then we would need to vote for an adjustment. (“abnormal” means the change of PRV price isn’t the result of a change in number of transactions in the network)
Hope my comment could clarify a few points for the proposal and if there are any other inputs you think we should add, feel free to comment below. Thanks.
on what dates will the new commission come into force…?
It depends on how the community and network validators consensus on the proposal. At the team’s end, this is not a big update and we can get things ready this week.
Incognito’s transaction volume is still very low, which is very important to prevent spam transactions in advance, but it is also very important to increase transaction volume and network security. If the platform can provide some rewards for users who currently provide liquidity, most of the existing users will choose to reinvest these rewards to increase liquidity instead of selling it.
I would even suggest that the number of faucet collections can be increased, and some advertisers be recruited to place advertisements on the faucet page, and the value of PRV can be maintained through the fees paid by advertisers, and at the same time, more people can have PRV, stimulating more users Come to the platform to get PRV and increase trading volume. This is not the best way, but we must also consider that the PRV issued to users will dilute the market value of PRV. In addition to increasing the chains and currencies supported by Incognito, it is definitely better for Incognito to increase (or maintain) the market value of PRV through other channels
I’ve posted a poll here: Poll: New Tx Fee?
Please mark your choice. Thanx.
Please vote again. I’ve enabled “show who voted” feature: Poll: New Tx Fee?
I have some new ideas:
In December, I transferred my XMR out and paid a network fee of 0.00003064 XMR, which is roughly equal to 0.004596 USD at current XMR prices. Increasing the PRV network fee to 0.1 PRV equates to a fee of 0.048 USD per transfer. This is not a high fee, but for a capped cryptocurrency (XMR has no cap), maybe we can refer to the transfer fee of Monero to adjust, about 0.01 PRV is enough, and Monero The transaction volume of Incognito is much larger than that of PRV (of course, we have to consider other issues, after all, Incognito is not Monero, and the direction of development is also different)
So I propose to increase the network fee to 0.01 PRV, and what we need most now is how to get more funds into Incognito. If possible, PRV should have a vault as a proof of PRV value, which is also a way to prove that PRV has its value, similar to over-collateralization.
I like how there are some nice high yielding liquidity pools, I think these would attract capital, right?
Can someone please educate me on how the LTC/XMR “Earn Pool” is able to yield the BIG +51% return?
How about having additional higher yield Long Term Lock up (6 and 12 months) in Provide for other assets like BTC, LTC & XMR?
At the moment it’s only limited to PRV, this may attract more capital to the platform.
Hey @maisie and community,
Here’s a thought…
I noticed that the Incognito App currently has the concept of “tickets” when making some transaction in “earn”.
For example, when I go to make several “Withdraw Rewards” from my Earn Pools the first withdrawal goes through no issue, but when I try to make my 2nd withdrawal shortly after, I get the following message:
You don’t have any spare tickets to make this transaction. Wait for one to free up.
This forces me to wait before can make my next withdrawal.
If I was a spammer, this would be very frustrating indeed.
Could a similar “ticket” system be implemented to prevent spam?
If so, this would negate the need to change the TX fee value.
As a user, I would also find this very frustrating
Yeah, I agree with you @abduraman, but how about this idea…
If Incognito gave all users a quota of 100 tickets day, do you think that would make things less frustrating?
This 100 limit would only allow 1 spammer to spam an entire 1 block per day (based on what @duc has calculated above).
Then this raises the question, would users be doing more than 100 TXs in a day and therefore getting frustrate?
In my case, 100 TXs per day would more than suffice.
I just see the 44% APR in the earn pool, where do you see the 51% ?
Yes, you’re right @xlsm142857, it was 51% and now is 42%. However, it’s still a BIG yield. Look at ETH / USDT - that at nice 36% yield and XMR / PRV is at 26% yield.
I’d like to know how these yields are calculated and are they being propped up by the Incognito treasury?
The ticket represents your ownership of the earn pools. When you request a withdrawal, the ticket will be burnt as a proof for withdrawal. You need to wait for the blockchain to mint another ticket as a replacement. And this can not be applied to prevent spam.
The APY depends on the pool size and the fee (the rewards for liquidity providers). The smaller the pool size is, the more dominant you are. So liquidity you have provided would be more usable, which increases the rewards you get. That’s how yield rates are calculated
hey @duc, I’m pleased to pass through the written breakdown you did for me and others. This is precisely useful input that helps to understand the trade-off.
I think this is calculated based on the trading volume and the amount of funds that provide liquidity
Hey everyone, we’re appreciated your thoughtful conversation here about the proposed PRV utilities, especially the new network fee. Also, thank you @abduraman for creating the survey. As mentioned earlier, more participants who hold PRV will be able to anonymously vote on such an important decision once we deliver the privacy DAO. (ETA: Dec 30, more details of how it works will be published on another topic).
According to the survey result and all shared ideas on the topic, we will be proceeding to update the network fee to 0.1 PRV (95% burned and 5% rewarded network validators). All needed deployment for the network, app, wallet extension, and website is estimated to be done today (Dec 21).
Good luck!!! :ням:
Yes, keep restaking until you get a better shard!
14 days from the start of discussion to implementation, with only 26 voters. That moved fast!
Where do the funds for the airdrops come from? Is the airdrop in place already, or did we jump the gun and alienate new users by raising the TX fee too fast?