docs: adds transaction fee to minted tokens #94
Conversation
raul-oliveira
changed the title
raul-oliveira
requested review from
msbrogli
and removed request for
pedroferreira1
| # Motivation | ||
| [motivation]: #motivation | ||
|
|
||
| Dozer suggested an alternative to the HTR deposit requirement when minting tokens. The idea is to remove the 1% deposit requirement and, instead, implement a transaction fee for every transfer of the minted tokens. [RFC](https://github.com/Dozer-Protocol/hathor-rfcs/blob/new-token-economics/projects/new-token-economics/token-economics.md) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion: The idea is to create a new type of custom tokens where tokens would be minted for free (i.e., no deposits) and fess will be charged for transactions.
|
|
||
| ## Deposit-Based Model | ||
|
|
||
| In this [model](https://github.com/HathorNetwork/rfcs/blob/master/text/0011-token-deposit.md), creators must deposit a percentage (P%) of the minted tokens’ value in HTR. For example, if P% is set at 1% and a user mints 100 tokens, they must deposit 1 HTR. This deposit acts as a reserve and is fully refundable if the tokens are later melted. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I understand that you added this section to contrast with the current proposal. Please emphasize that this is the current model available in the network.
|
|
||
| ## Fee-Based Model | ||
|
|
||
| The fee-based model does not require an upfront deposit. Instead, each transfer of the minted tokens incurs a transaction fee, which is deducted automatically. The exact fee rate will be defined at a later stage. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please emphasize that this is the new model proposed in the RFC.
|
|
||
| By selecting the appropriate model, token creators can optimize their minting strategy based on their specific needs and usage scenarios. A key use case is the creation of memecoins. | ||
|
|
||
| ### How Bitcoin deals with fee |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please move this section to "Prior Art".
|
|
||
| Wallets and services use fee estimators to suggest optimal fees based on the mempool. The protocol does not enforce a minimum fee, but nodes can set a "relay fee" to prevent spam from very low-value transactions. | ||
|
|
||
| ### How Etherium deals with fee |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please move this section to "Prior Art".
|
|
||
| An explicit use case is meme coins creation. | ||
|
|
||
| # Guide-level explanation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's missing a section to cover the transaction PoW. Will fee-based transactions still have to solve PoW? If yes, it can be used to prevent flood/spams.
|
|
||
| ### 2. Potential for Low-Cost Network Congestion | ||
|
|
||
| **Issue:** If fees are too low, bad actors could create a high volume of low-value transactions, leading to congestion. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't the current PoW mechanism enough to solve this issue?
| **Issue:** Transactions involving multiple tokens introduce a more complex fee structure, requiring additional computation to determine the appropriate charge. | ||
|
|
||
| **Impact:** | ||
| - Increased processing overhead for nodes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd say it would increase processing overhead for wallets (not nodes).
|
|
||
| ### 4. Miner Incentive Model May Need Adjustments | ||
|
|
||
| **Issue:** Since miners are currently incentivized through TX mining and HTR block rewards, a shift to fee-based transactions could impact their revenue model. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tx mining is not part of the miners incentive scheme. Additionally, I can't see how the current proposal would impact miners since all previous mechanisms would still be in place.
| **Issue:** Nano contracts and other execution-based transactions introduce **variable computational costs** that are not reflected in a simple per-transaction fee model. | ||
|
|
||
| **Impact:** | ||
| - Fees may be **too low to cover execution costs**, leading to **free rider issues**. |
No description provided.