Proposition to remove transaction fees if you hold SNGLS

eth fees. BTW, the breaker app isn’t working for the video :pensive:

Yea that’s what I thought you were saying and that’s not what we are talking about here. If you read the WP there are transaction fees on the protocol layer and then (which are not covered in the WP) there can be additional transactional fees at the application layer which is a business decision of application. The conversation we are having here is about wether the feature should effect the protocol or application layer. In regards to ETH TX fees you will need to take up that argument with the Ethereum Foundation and the architecture of Ethereum. None of the devs have any respect for EOS and we are an ETH based protocol. The good news is that we will be open sourcing all of this SO since you are a budding developer you will be able to port this all over to EOS and create your own ecosystem on EOS.

For context on the fees on the protocol: https://github.com/SingularDTV/snglsdao-whitepaper#3-original-dao-controls

How so? Works on my end, if you are talking about resolution that is what Zoom natively records in and that’s the best we can get.

"None of the devs have any respect for EOS and we are an ETH based protocol. " Why the jab tho ? Is that an ego play ? May all chains win, united in the larger fight is how joker looks at it. :black_joker::100::unicorn:

Hey Troy. I haven’t watched the video about this, so apologies if this is answered in it already, but when you say removal of fees from the protocol and application layer fees, do you mean removing all SNGLS fees associated within the SNGLS ecosystem itself (aka at ERC20 level) and SNGLS fees for individual Breaker applications respectively?

Are there any other reasons for these fees apart from driving revenue to Breaker? If not, I would recommend removing fees at the most basic level, which appears to be the protocol level from my current understanding from the above paragraph, with the possibility of adding them at a later date. The reason for this is to lower the barrier for entry in the interest of building a strong community.

Take it easy buddy.

Sounds like you’re reaching. You took it as a jab and your ego WAS hurt.

By saying “may all chains win”, you’re saying “it’s okay to embrace piles of shit chains as long as it’s classified as a chain.” Sorry. Without going into a lengthy debate about it because I just don’t care enough, I wrote EOS off a long time ago. It’s subject to a litany of serious attack vectors stemming from the fact that it’s categorically not decentralized without any reasonable road map to become sufficiently decentralized. EOS is neither unique nor innovative to set itself apart from Ethereum enough to gain any significant traction and yes, transactions are being faked to pump the coin and gain exposure.

As as of the other day, this accusation that it’s centralized is once again on display with China literally controlling the show now.

If I seem irritated, it’s because I’m a decentralized protocol maximalist. Anything else is just boring.

:black_joker: well, people may define decentralization differently. It doesn’t make it appropriate to throw insults towards other groups. Let the market decide who is innovative - as adoption and usage will demonstrate a form of consensus in defining what is “decentralized” and “innovative” enough. :v:

No, we are simply talking about the removal of the transaction fee which is one way that the protocol puts funds in the DAO treasury.

It’s really important to understand that the BREAKER dapp is just an UI that is built on top of and services the SNGLS protocol. The BREAKER dapp interacts with the traditional banking system so it charges an overhead fee for processing credit cards and doing KYC/AML and all that good stuff you need to do to be compliant with legacy banking. Processing Crypto is a different beast and isn’t constrained by the same issues since that all happens at base layer (Ethereum). As seen from the WEB3 Tech Stack.

Also important to note is that the DAO controls the parameter of how much the Transaction Fee is. Very much in the same way MakerDAO controls what the interest rate for CDP loans are. In fact with this proposition we are also talking about adding another parameter that the DAO would control which would be how many SNGLS you would need to hold to get the discount on the transaction fee or % off. That’s why we wanted to open it up to the public and see what everyone thought about this because it does add an extra layer of tokenomics to the whole ecosystem, but is a proven business model for exchanges like Binance or IDEX where if you hold the token you don’t have to pay the exchange fee. We haven’t seen any other media distribution platform offer something like this (I could be wrong and would love it if someone pointed me to a project doing this) and are excited to offer it to the community but it needs to be vetted.

If you are talking about application layer fees then yes those are designed to drive revenue to BREAKER. If you are talking about protocol layer then those are designed to drive liquidity to the DAO treasury. In the Whitepaper we talk about creating an Adaptive Protocol, where the system adapts to the needs of the protocol development. The treasury is funded in more ways than one so removing the transaction fee for people that are holding SNGLS if you are using an UI that is built on top of the protocol doesn’t worry me too much from a tokenomics perspective.

GOOD SEEING YOU BROTHER!

For the record, I wasn’t throwing shade I was simply expressing a fact of the thinking inside the project.

I think this right here is the crux of the matter and would love to hear people’s thoughts on it.

I’d imagine this would be some type of dynamic # of free transactions per sngls token based on network metrics ? Do you envision # of free transactions correlated with number of tokens someone holds ? Can one “delegate” his/her tokens to offer his/her allocated token rights for free/discounted Txn? If the resource is renewable, then would need the renewable period defined as well. Interesting idea, and I think it should be a “go”. :v:

Breaker call video works now. Looks like another bchain code base I was running may have been using the same port…

I understand that. It’s just hard for me not to look at some chains (not all) as blatant money grabs and uninterested in building public goods for the world more than they are about attracting retail investors.

It makes sense for this feature to live at the protocol layer. If a regular user locks some(amount may vary depending on use case) SNGLS into his account or wallet, he can benefit in various ways through the whole ecosystem regardless of the app being used. Reduced fees, discounts, better exchange rates, rewards… there are so many open doors.

1 Like

entitled to your opinion. May the tech from any chain speak for itself in the long term - not words.

I agree with you that I think it should be protocol layer based so that it works across the entire ecosystem, but some of these are application layer business decisions. I guess you could do exchange rate if you had a DEX.

I would love for this entire thing, including the money to handed over to the Tokenholders to manage.

We are currently building the smart contract so the DAO can vote on the ammount of SNGLS you will need to have staked so your wallet won’t have to pay the transaction fee. I think of this as a WEB3 membership fee. Cool way get people to use everything no?

Transaction fee means percent taken by Snglsdao of each rent/purchase operation at breaker portal?

This will be a protocol layer mechanism, so any portal that uses the protocol this will apply. A new membership model.

Yes you are correct in what it means though.

Thats sounds good for end user.
My point is to target customers into groups to provide value according their needs/purposes.
Like that:

  1. Content users (zero transaction fee etc)
  2. Investors/validators (validators fee etc)
  3. Hodlers (time price grows etc)