Fatman describes the latest LUNC tax proposal as worse than the burn tax parameter and authoritarian.
In a tweet on Friday, famous Terra whistleblower FatMan criticized the latest community proposal to reduce the tax burn parameter to 0.2% and allocate 10% of the tax to the community pool for development as authoritarian.
“Giving 10% of the tax to yourself is an even worse idea than the burn tax,” tweets FatMan. “Devs absolutely deserve to be paid – either through donations or via formal community pool spend proposals – but automatically redirecting 10% of every burn to “contributors” is authoritarian & wrong.”
Giving 10% of the tax to yourself is an even worse idea than the burn tax. Devs absolutely deserve to be paid – either through donations or via formal community pool spend proposals – but automatically redirecting 10% of every burn to "contributors" is authoritarian & wrong.
— FatMan (@FatManTerra) October 14, 2022
FatMan believes that the Terra Classic chain should abandon the tax and mandatory donations and focus on providing utility and attracting decentralized applications (DApps).
The Terra Rebels Respond
Unsurprisingly, the comments by FatMan have attracted a lot of attention and responses from key members of the Terra Rebels.
For example, Edward Kim clarified that funds allocated to the community pool must still pass a governance vote to be distributed. Consequently, Terra Rebels do not have free access or a claim to the pool.
Let me clarify, it goes to the community pool and must be voted on via governance for distribution
— Edward Kim (@edk208) October 14, 2022
Meanwhile, Alex Forshaw described the comments by FatMan as unfair, as he asserted that a community-owned pool to fund developments is the only option left under the status quo. Notably, Forshaw challenged FatMan to propose an alternative.
You make many intelligent criticisms but this one is not fair
— 4lex_4sh4w_TR (@4lex_4sh4w_TR) October 14, 2022
Furthermore, StrathCole emphasizes Kim’s point highlighting that each spend has to go through a governance vote. In addition, he notes that even if the proposer explicitly stated that the 10% should be reserved for developers, it is not what the proposal achieves at the end of the day.
Notably, none of the Terra Classic developers were involved in writing the proposal in question – proposal 5234.
Each spend of the pool will have to pass governance. So I don't see the problem here. Even if the proposer would have indicated it should be used for devs, this is not what the proposal decides or has as effect.
And nine of the devs (afaik) wrote that proposal.
— StrathCole (@ColeStrathclyde) October 14, 2022
It bears mentioning that proposal 5234 comes as the current 1.2% tax parameter has failed to meet expectations. It hopes to attract on-chain volume lost since the 1.2% tax implementation and provide a means for sustainable chain development.
Notably, the author of the proposal, Duncan Day, in response to FatMan’s concerns, while admitting errors in his writings, confirms that the outcome would be as stated by Kim and Strathmore.
Yes. @FatManTerra, this would be an error in my part on the writing on behalf of Akujiro. It is my first go at these kinds of things, forgive the errors.
However, Ed and StrathCole are correct that the money goes to the community pool. Please read the parameter changes.
— duncan (@wrapped_dday) October 14, 2022
Kim has recently revealed support for the proposal, as reported by The Crypto Basic.