Proposal: Change the unit price of energy to 420 sun #483
Comments
halibobo1205
changed the title
|
一切听组织安排 |
|
Many spam transactions on TRON, but AD TRC10 transactions are almost gone. |
|
老师，需要清理的东西都可以清理掉，那现在区块上面还有资金吗？老师有个问帮朋友问一下，就是王先生领取的10000比特币不是给他给他的补偿吗？老师中文您应该可以看懂吧，英文我不太会，请谅解
nancyhallo ***@***.***> 于 2022年11月26日周六 上午10:11写道：
… Many spam transactions on TRON, but AD TRC10 transactions are almost gone.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#483 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A3SQ56PYZTBK3LECMRQFRQDWKGSXNANCNFSM6AAAAAASLZ4PEQ>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
The value of the chain is driven by transaction fees, it is unreasonable if the low-fee on chain does not match the value on the chain. |
|
I agree with you
joker-gdb ***@***.***> 于 2022年11月26日周六 上午10:38写道：
… Price increase again, very depressing, TRON is no longer the cheapest
public chain.
The value of the chain is driven by transaction fees, it is unreasonable
if the low-fee on chain does not match the value on the chain.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#483 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A3SQ56KRFVCA2S5BXGGHZFTWKGV4TANCNFSM6AAAAAASLZ4PEQ>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Really don't think this is a good idea. It's already to expensive to send NFTs around and now your killing some of my ideas for games 😞 |
|
Some guys are airdropping small-amount funds every day, even some transfers with 0 USDT
|
|
It is right to suppress low-value transactions. For the increasing transaction fee, we can solve it by an alternative way: staking when needed. And for me, a good news is that i see the trend of TRX price rising. |
|
Hi, I'm Sirluke, member of USTX team. This proposal is worrying, because it implies that network resources are getting closer to the max allowed. Is it true? Tron cannot scale anymore? If so, why should we keep developing here? Regarding the proposal I'm against for the following reasons: Some comments on the proposals:
The most effective way to eliminate dust and scam TX is to make them invisible: just hide them on Tronscan and Tronlink. Users will not get trapped again and the scammers will quickly stop doing them. KISS |
I am also a TRON developer, in fact, it will not get closer to the max allowed, beacuse the feelimit can also be adjusted. About 30% of trc20 trxs are small-amount spam transactions, and 30% of trx tranfers are ad transactions with memo. v4.6 support the memo fee mechanism, this can solve the problem of trx spam trxs. currently, trc20 spam transactions can only be solved through price adjustments. TronScan and Tronlink can also block TRX ad transactions with memo fees, but cannot solve TRC20 spam transactions. I am also thinking about how to decrease low-value transactions without increasing the fee, but it is really difficult. |
|
I do not agree on rising the fees again, burning rate is healthy now and even I agree spam/scam transactions its annoying sometimes this is a good stress test for the network and the TRON network being able to stand such increasing volume on daily transactions will test the architecture to the limit. At some point if we want to become a global payment solution the network will withstand even higher pressure. Better to test ourselves before mass adoption than sorry later on. TRON is no longer cheaper than Polygon and BSC, we are getting less and less competitive advantages over other networks and rising fees put ourselves into the wrong direction in my opinion. Thanks! |
|
@halibobo1205 @ethan1844 , which are the risks if we don't implement an energy price increase? |
|
This doesn't feel like it is intended to protect users at all from the USDT spam but it is instead to reduce transactions on the network. The problem I have is that its a short term solution at best, and it will surely drive away users and once again move the goal post for dapps who have been developing with a hope that the fees would remain predictable on chain. Hiding these transactions in the wallet would greatly reduce their ability to trick people into sending USDT to the wrong address. The energy fee and energy rental fee on the network is not cheap, when people no longer fall for the scam you will see this become unprofitable and the TRC20 spam will drop off. Fight it by educating users and providing as much warning as possible in wallet so that they cant fall for it. Then the spam falls off naturally and you are not raising costs and hurting all users and dapps in the process. This proposal is like hitting the whole chain with a sledge hammer to kill a fly. You might kill the fly but the damage to the chain could be worse than what the fly was doing. |
|
Your calculations of transaction prices not accurate. You provided calculations for cheapest scenarios with bottomed TRX price 0.053$. Examples: JustLend borrow 150 USDT burns 59.9 TRX (3.17$) https://tronscan.org/#/transaction/3fb9581e4f40c5484bb0d84464e10f3454828e19c33d71a0d57a5f3118153ae5 SunSwap v2 swap USDD to TRX burns 31.58 TRX (1.67$) Some other calculations available at https://tronpulse.io/energy Tron transaction prices are already comparable to Ethereum prices, and it will be worse at TRX price 0.08$-0.10$ and MUCH worse with energy price increase. You can't compare Ethereum ecosystem with Tron ecosystem for now. It makes no sense to prefer Tron if transaction prices comparable or even higher than Ethereum. And it not healthy for Tron dapp developers if transactions prices can be easy changed. Also BSC and Polygon transactions already significant cheaper than Tron with much more users and dapps. So I think this is a very bad decision. And I don't like the manipulation of calculations to justify it. It looks like just the way to increase burn rate without thinking about future ecosystem development. |
I think the chain has enough capacity to contain more transactions, but these transactions cannot contain too many low-value transactions, the damage of low-value transactions to the chain is lasting, and it will permanently increase the database capacity of the complete network database , for this reason, the node operator will permanently pay for the storage brought by these transactions. The fee adjustment mechanism is to deal with these situations. When there are other ways to solve these problems in the future, the energy fee can also be reduced. |
|
Perhaps this proposal will help TRX return to a price of $1, and it will indeed increase the cost of DAPP users. At present, what I see is that the largest dapp of TRON is stable coin, and 80% of smart contract transactions on the chain are stable currency transfers. Since the energy fee of TRON increased from 10 sun to 140 sun, it has long been not the cheapest chain. However, they will never compare the cost of TRON with BSC, Ploygon, and Sol. The current total circulation of stable coins on the TRON chain TRON and TVL are still ahead of them, not even at the same level, TRON is still in the top 3 public chains.
|
|
I am 100% agreed with you but we need use special fees with TRC721, if we want other exponential grow these fees need be low for buy and sell nfts or transfer them like other chains. A lot of NFT users is annoying with that too, but we can do a special fees for TRC721 smart contracts. |
|
As described in Motivation part, the low-value transaction with malicious memo is the major problem. Indeed, I agree with this, to solve this problem, better way is to charge for memos, increasing the cost of malicious information. I think except for increasing energy price, we should also consider about increasing the memo fee. |
|
It is true that many small transfers with similar addresses on the chain are received several times, so raising the energy should reduce these transfers |
|
First off, I'd like to state that my response is an accumulation of a lot of responses from TRONICS within the community. These include developers, users, and investors. 1. Transaction Fees are Not Competitive With Other Leading BlockchainsWhile it may be true TRON is competitive with Ethereum. It is no longer competitive with other blockchains. Please take a look at the USDT fees associated with each blockchain. As you can see BSC and Polygon are both significantly cheaper to transfer USDT on. These are the blockchains TRON needs to compare itself to. Some are worried that if energy fees increase more that TRON will become like Ethereum and market share with USDT transfers will get stolen from other cheaper alternatives. 2. Increasing energy costs will not increase deflation.There is a minor miscalculation with increasing deflation. This factors in that the transactions will stay the same but the whole purpose of this is to reduce the malicious transactions. If it works then the number of transactions will decrease and it will become less deflationary as the malicious low-level transactions are not spending for fees. 3. Dapp development is too expensive on TRON.It is already too expensive to create certain Dapps on TRON. The increasing costs on the network have driven away a lot of Dapp developers to move to cheaper chains such as Polygon and BSC. If TRON wants to focus on acquiring developers and building its ecosystem, then it actually needs to reduce these costs. If the mission is to make TRON an empty ecosystem only used for stablecoin transfers then it needs to publicly tell developers to be focused on building on BitTorrent Chain. Even the WINNFT Horse game has become too expensive to open all the loot boxes attached to that game on TRON. 4. Possible Solutions Instead of Raising Energy Fees
5. TRON's Network Capacity?This proposal's wording makes it sound like TRON is struggling with network capacity and can not scale further. A few developers within the community would like to be able to see server performance statistics and the history of TPS. For example: Is TRON's current network capacity at 90%? SummaryThe focus would be to implement the low hanging fruit first. Get tronlink to hide low value USDT sends, especially 0 value ones. That likely makes a large part of the spam worthless and you'd see it tail off. Then focus on why the nodes are having issues, if it is txn amount then we need to optimize or maybe look at slowing down block time or some other creative solution. If its storage then maybe there is a way to offload or compress some of the older storage from a few years back. Surely other chains are also facing this problem and there is research to do. What we shouldn't do is focus on energy as the fix, don't increase energy price, don't implement the old proposal to mess with how energy works. Just let the energy system work the way it's been working, which is largely successful, and focus on the behavioral patterns that are allowing these scams to be profitable. |
|
I think WindsOfChange summarized it all pretty well. If the issue is the growing amount of tx, especially spam tx, better work on making those spams inefficient by hiding them. Then check about how to technically reinforce/release the pressure on the Network. If we are in an emergency situation and there is really no alternative that can be implemented quickly, the raise of fees might be a short term solution but an expiration date should be included in the proposal (e.g. 6 months) + the criterias and details about a potential extension. A long term (undetermined duration) raise of fees might have a big negative impact on the ecosystem in terms of diversity of dApps and “real” user traffic. |
|
High staking rate are critical for blockchain. and increased energy price will indeed increase the stake amount of the whole network. As for the increased transaction fee, it may be solved by an alternative way, such as new stake model. |
@WindsofChange92 did a great recap of the opinions of many active users and devs on Tron network. I'll just want to say that putting limitations on small value TX, as proposed, can effectively break some smart contracts, since it may happen that some rewarding (staking, farming) dApps can deliver small amounts, depending on the user balance. So this should be evaluated with great care. I'd say that direct transfers (TRC20 and TRX) if done wallet to wallet (not going through smart contracts) could be limited, but I'm not sure about the real benefit. What matters most to me as a dev, is the condition of the network: are we hitting the limit with 70TPS daily average? TRON historical peak was 108TPS. |
|
The purpose of this proposal is to reduce spam transactions, and the biggest victims of this proposal are DAPP users and developers, seems it will drive more dapp users to BSC and other heaper chains. In fact , the biggest beneficiaries are all TRX holders. As long as the USDT users will not be driven away, the increase in energy fee will be successful, because the TRX burning amount will be greatly increased, it will directly bring benefits to TRX holders. I found that the vast majority of energy consumption comes from stable coin transfers, so, if stablecoin transfer fees will still be cheaper than Ethereum, stable coin users will not leave, TRON will still be the stablecoins leader chain. |
If I understand correctly you are saying that dApp users and devs are not the future of TRON and could move to other BCs. The idea is to take the most from USDT transactions, as long as it's possible, even if this scares away DeFi, Web3 and GameFi users. If at some point in the future USDT moves to another chain (or moves back to ETH if they ever implement 2.0) TRON will be dead. At that point I don't think that TRX holders will be happy anymore. |
|
@ustx I 100% agree with you , but what I said maybe is the truth. Everyone knows that price increase will drive away dapp users, but, what you saw is that the transaction volume hasn't decreased even after multiple energy fee increases. This is also why they have never regarded BSC as a competitor, DAPPs are not the main target of TRON, that is what I saw. When the price of ETH and Ethereum gas drops again, the stable coin transfe fee is cheaper than TRON, i guess you will find there will be another proposal here to reduce the fee. |
|
This proposal not about spam, dust attacks, chain health and ecosystem growth. It's just about token burn and inflation rate. In other words - marketing buzzwords. Try to look at random block transactions. 40-60% - dust attacks. Even without memo, just 0.000001 TRX. They are using free bandwidth of newly created accounts. So transactions count and account growth is not real thing in Tron network at this time. Real thing - stable coins transfer. But it will work while it cheap enough. Energy price bump is direct attack the only real use case of Tron network. Even last price bump (from 140 to 280) has already created a serious danger for the transition to other networks. Polygon with they marketing, Ethereum bridge and 20-30 times cheaper transactions can take away the only living users of Tron network. Just spam transactions and token burn, is this the future? |
|
Reducing spam transactions may be the direct motivation, but if it is really passed, what I just said may be the second motivation considered by decision makers. I think TRON is not a DAPP chain, as Justin SUN said long time ago, TRON will become the global settlement layer, same as swift system, now it's getting closer. |
|
Good day. We from InterCrone world Team a against this proposal. Honestly we dont understand why we need to fight against fake transaction when the also burn energy or when someone freeze so much energy that he can send all this fakes. Better fokus on building and not focus to make the chain more and more expensive. |
|
Increasing the energy fee will not be a solution to reduce spam transactions. |
|
This TIP may give a message that it is time to move to the L2 solution of TRON. namely Bittorrent Chain. https://doc.bt.io/docs/quickstart looks like it is a fork of a Polygon. and it supports a bridge between TRON and BTTC, seems currently it is super Cheap on BTTC, and it only takes minutes to complete a bridge from TRON to BTTC. And BTTC is a fully EVM chain. which is also super easy for all Developers to migrate the DAPP to BTTC. Hopes this will help some users. |
|
Yes, increase your fees please! You compared the fees to |
|
At this situation, a flexible stake and resource delegation model is too important for DAPP developers and users, it can decrease the DAPP transaction fee sharply. |
|
The current transaction volume is far from the upper limit of TPS, fee increasing is not for the large transaction volume. The proportion of low-value transactions in the transaction should not be too high, it will cause permanent maintenance costs for the database. I think many people have also mentioned that it is not a correct approach for wallets and browsers to block low-value transactions, which violates the rights and interests of transaction senders, and the most reasonable way to suppress them through economic models. The average gas fee of Ethereum is 20Gwei, not 10Gwei, also be clearly seen from the USDT transfer fee:https://gasfeesnow.com/ The fee adjustment is only a fast solution, I hope that more mechanism-level ideas can be proposed |
|
I want to state that it is possible for wallets and browsers to auto-hide these microtransactions by default but not block them. A simple toggle can be used to which is defaulted to hide. This could be used so that fewer people get scammed, and the scammers sending micro-transactions are less profitable and since they don't make money then they stop. Also compressing the database storage of historical data for the database issues. |
|
Currently, these scammers/malicious micro-transactions are also renting energy. It won't affect the number of txns if they also rent energy to reduce their costs. |
|
A probelm is usually not solved by one way, malicious trx trc10 transactions can be restricted by memo fee, free bandwidth, as for malicious trc20 transactions, they can be restricted by both memo fee and energy unit price. And It is difficult to solve the problem 100%, but it needs to try best to restrict the issue. |
|
I think this upgrade is harmful... and a lot of the analysis above has already made it clear why. |
|
I'm a developer of a wallet. We often receive complains of scams on TRON and for frauds, the cost is indeed too low at present. I believe that for ordinary users, the increasing of transaction fees will not have a significant impact. I support this proposal if it improves network efficiency and reduces fraud. |
|
Pros: reduce low-value and malicious transactions to release network resources pressure; increase TRX staking rate; facilitate deflation rate of TRX |
There's no need to hide transactions in Tronscan, but on the user wallet Tronlink to avoid copy and paste scams. |
Are we sure we want a chain supported only by whales? |
|
I performed a practical test with the same contract code deployed to both networks, I calculated the cost of the same transaction on both networks and found that the transaction cost on TRON was still lower than on ETH, where the contract code is already publicly available on Tronscan and Etherscan. Calling the contract's postMessage method with the following parameters hellowrold.
After the above specific experiment, energy unit price increased to 420sun,we found that the cost on TRON is still lower than the cost on ETH for the same transaction. The following is a record of the same transaction on a different network and the contract code has been verified in the browser： |
The point is not about having lower fees with respect to ETH, it's about the network cost in general. High fees drive away users and devs, because certain contracts are too expensive to operate. Take your example, calling a contract that does nothing (17 lines of code including comments!) costs 50cents. That's not acceptable when other chains charge 1/100 of that amount. |
|
Burning TRX is not the only way for developers, this proposal will encourage more users to staking trx to obtain free energy. The energy fee will not have much impact on developers,they can stake trx for free energy, that can reduce costs, this is different from other chains. |
|
@halibobo1205, if the only reason to increase the energy unit price is to discourage malicious or low value transactions, then this proposal will not work. The scammers who make millions of low value transactions already rent energy and will continue to do so. |
|
Too many zero-amount transferfrom transactions, explorers and wallets should also do something to prevent this. |
|
Stop comparing |
|
Thanks to everyone's contribution to this proposal. |
|
At present, since the proposal has been taken effect for a week, the data on-chain meet our expectation,
In the chart below, please find the comparison of the data on-chain between the week before and after the proposal took effect(2022.11.27 ~ 2022.12.11),
I will continue to follow up the data on-chain and bring you more effects of this proposal. |
and others
Simple Summary
Adjust the unit price of energy to 0.5 times the current price, after the change, the unit price of energy will be 420 sun.
Motivation
The TRON network is well known for its advantages of low transaction fees and fast transfer speed. In the past few months, the average daily transaction volume of the TRON network was about 5 million, almost 5 times that of Ethereum, maintaining an extremely incremental trend.
Specifically, the volume of smart contract transactions has increased by 50% in recent months, the rapid growth of transactions brings pressure on the network and databases, so we need to relieve the pressure properly. After analysis, it is found that a considerable proportion of the transactions are made of low-value and even malicious transactions, which encroach on the network resources and affect the development of the whole ecosystem.
Currently, we need to raise the energy price to inhibit those low-value transactions, and in the meantime fight against malicious transactions and behaviors, therefore mitigating the transaction booming pressure on the network, making a healthier developing ecology, and furthermore, facilitating the staking and deflation rate of TRX according to former experiences.
Combining measurement with experiences in the past, such a proposal would not have an impact on high-value transactions, meanwhile, we also encourage other developers in the community to make more ideas and contributions to further mitigate the influence on other transactions in the ecosystem.
Timeline
The estimated timeline,
How to Initialize the Voting Request
Change the unit price of energy to 420 sun (wallet-cli)
Background
At present, the TRON network is terrifically active, the daily smart contract transactions increased significantly, from 1.4M to more than 2M per day in the past months, which we may find in the diagram below,
We have also seen some small-amount TRC20 transfers on the chain, according to statistics, more than 17.5% of TRC20 transactions on the chain are less than $0.1, and the proportion is increasing, below is the historical data,
The unit price of energy has been raised three times, firstly raised from 10 sun to 40 sun on 25th Nov. 2020, secondly raised from 40 sun to 140 sun on 11th Feb. 2021, and thirdly raised from 140 sun to 280 sun on 28th October. 2021 and in the months that followed, the daily Net new TRX has been greatly reduced due to more TRX burned. For details, see https://tronscan.org/#/data/charts/supply
https://tronscan.org/#/data/charts/supplyAndDestroy
On the other hand, due to the increased fees, users will get energy by staking TRX to reduce the consumption of TRX. With the increase in fees, the TRX staking ratio also shows a growing trend. For detail, see https://tronscan.org/#/data/charts/OverallFreezingRate.
The following two graphs show that the number of energy obtained by burning TRX decreaseed between November 2020 and April 2021, no increase and decrease from April 2021 to now, while the number of energy obtained by staking TRX is increasing. Check detail at https://tronscan.org/#/data/stats/EnergyConsume.
Data Analysis
After the energy fee is increased from 280sun to 420sun, the TRON transaction fee is still much lower than that of Ethereum. The rise in the fee will greatly expand the deflation rate and increase the TRX staking rate.
Below is the detailed analysis.
Transaction fee comparison with ETH
The transaction fee of TRON is still much lower than that of Ethereum after the unit price of energy is increased to 420sun, the following fees are based on the average value obtained from the historical data of the last month,
Effect of fee adjustments on inflation
The inflation rate will be reduced from -1.39% to -3.17% after unit price of energy is increased to 420sun, the TRX annual burning volume will be increased from 3,236,015,540 to 4,769,344,770, please check the detailed in the table below,
Effect on staking rate
The overall staking rate is on the rise after the energy fee in October 2021 was increased from 140sun to 280sun, below is the historical data，
We assume the relationship between resource cost and staking amount is a linear relationship, so here is the calculation:
From 140sun to 280sun, the unit price of energy has doubled, and the staking rate has increased by about 33%, Therefore, when the energy price is changed to 420sun, we can estimate that the staking rate will increase by 16.5% on the basis of 43.81%, that is 51%.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: