PIP-29: Burn Gateway Burn

[JackALaing (Jack Laing)]

@msa6867

Can you incorporate some guidance into the proposal (even if it is non-binding) as to your intentions with this new parameter as we transition into v1

v1 is outside the scope of this proposal. v1 completely rearchitects Pocket from the ground up, including a new economic model with a native on-chain gateway actor, and any calibration of v1 economic parameters should be in the context of a holistic view of v1’s architecture. This is an R&D workstream that the Foundation will be leading on this year as we move towards the v1 launch, working closely with the protocol devs and economists in our community.

Given that there is planned to be an on-chain gateway actor, I would anticipate this off-chain parameter to be replaced by an on-chain parameter that determines the fees imposed on the gateway actor.

@msa6867

Have you considered doing something similar on the demand side to what you are suggesting in your whitepaper be done on the supply side - namely creating a two-sided bounding of the fee as a function of price - , e.g., " Gateway fee of max($0.00000085, 15uPOKT) per relay?

This feels needlessly complex given that we can quite easily calculate weekly fee amounts on aggregate using:

1. the average closing price (the standard method we’re using for DAO payments per this post) and
2. the total relays from the last 7 days.

@msa6867

Practically, nothing changes, as the PIP can still give guidance to PNF to set the value weekly based on price such that the value is equivalent to $0.00000085 of the previous-week average price, etc.

If nothing changes, and we’re going to be adjusting the uPOKT denomination of the parameter on a weekly basis in order to anchor it to a fixed value of $0.00000085, why add this extra layer of complexity? Take a step back and ask what it is the DAO is approving. The USD value of $0.00000085 is the fixed value that is being approved - therefore this is the relevant value for the purposes of this proposal.