Proposal to change the token Tax structure (UPDATED 1) (UPDATED 2)

good feedback im behind your idea

I love the structured tax concept. We want to grow the SLP at first but also want to encourage normal and healthy buying and selling.

I totally disagree with this. A lot of investors including want to send their BSL to main wallet or a cold store wallet and it´s just horrible if you need to pay a 4% fee to do that. Will scare off and make a lot of investors angry once they realize this. And most new investors don´t know, at least on Hedera. I get we need the buy and sell tax but the tax on in wallet transfers needs to end as soon as possible. I have a pretty big bag of BSL and this makes me really annoyed and probably will make me leave and sell my BSL tbh.

I support your proposal. Mostly the 0% in wallet tax but I think that fee structure looks good to. The 0% tax needs to be implemented ASAP or we will loose investors on Hedera once the word gets out.

How do I vote on this btw?

this is just a discussion. next step would be a temperature check, before it can move to the onchain voting

I think this is a necessary proposal and I appreciate the work Glastirr did to publish it.

Some comments:

(1) it makes sense to pay a tax when you enter or exit the DAO by buying or selling BSL with/for another token. It is a novel approach but seems fair and sustainable to me. However applying this tax also to transfers does not make sense to me. When a BSL transfer occur from a wallet to another, probably it is not involved a change in ownership in the tokens. But it becomes a terrible burden for a DAO member who simply wants to transfer his tokens between his wallets. You would say it could be done without tax by importing one wallet into another, but I for example do not like to expose the seed phrase for it, and it is obviously more cumbersome.

I guess the transfer tax was not in the BankSocial dev team mind, but it is simply a consequence of a simpler token mint design.

(2) the progressive tax rate although reasonable could be a problem from a programability/exchange point of view and in that case I would favor simplicity, that is, a flat tax rate.

For those who oppose the tax reduction because they have been in the DAO for a long time and consider unfair that new members contribute less % to the SLP, I would say to them to put the DAO in a higher priority than their personal interest. I’m also here for 2 years, but we have to think about what would be best for the DAO, and if we come to the conclusion that objectively a lower tax rate would be better for the DAO (because it would improve liquidity and that would also add to the SLP) then that should be the best course of action regardless of anything else. These are natural market circumstances that we have to accept. Over time we will receive the benefit or harm of our past decisions in the price of the BSL token.

1 Like

Im just thinking outloud for now, but i do feel 8% round trip in and out is high.
I take it there is a tech issue to have it only on the buy side?
After all when you buy you’re getting a share from the loan pool.
If not possible then 2% on the buy and sell side would be much more palitable for most investors.

The transfer would be best at 0% but again im not sure about any tech issues with that such as transfering tokens to other people.
If there were a problem there, then id think a flat 1% across the board (buy, sell and transfer) would acceptable to most.

At 1% we’d see much more turnover of tokens leading to higher liquidity which is a positive for investors looking to onboard and particularly for those wanting larger amounts.

The other issue is on SaucerSwap the 4% hits your hbars as well. So even 2% adds up at 8% for the round trip. 16% is just nuts.

Even though we’ve all paid our 4% i could live with 0% for simplicity and just back we get more members active particularly on our exchange which i assume we get a cut of and part of that could go to a loan pool.

2 Likes

I agree with dropping the tax involving transfers. However, I don’t agree with any other changes. The stair-step in proposal 1 is premature and the $ values are far too low for a global CU. Best to wait and see how things develop over the next 12-24 months and evaluate at that time.