On "redirecting" tx fees to addresses

Nu voting system gives Shareholders a degree of control over the network never seen before in crypto. I was thinking yesterday “what’s left to control” ?

Well, one thing that came to mind is this : currently transactions fee are burned, and contribute to the depletion of the supply (to which degree actually? do we have numbers? ) …

Imagine what could happen if we let shareholder vote on NBT address(es) where the tx fee is redirected instead of burned.

For instance one’s could cast the following vote :

  • 50% --> burn
  • 40% --> Liquidity Pool Operator Fund
  • 10% --> Bounty Program

I would like to know your opinion :

  1. It is something technically feasible?
  2. What could we do with it ?
  3. Similar to the way PoW systems inceltivize mining with txfees, could this be seen as a revenue mechanism for the network?

Nice idea, but isn’t that in the end the same as having them destroyed and creating NBT grants at

  • 40% of the value of destroyed NBT for a liquidity pool operator fund
  • 10% of the value of destroyed NBT for a bounty program


We don’t, but the blockchain does, right?
Would be nice to have an overview in the blockexplorer

Not quite, NBT grants requires inflating the supply and it’s not automatic. The “redirect fee” system would be 100% automated, a direct function of the network health and usage (the more tx, the wealthier the receivers) , and will not inflate supply.

Having money put to a purpose in an automatic way is for sure nice, I can’t deny that.
I fear it might introduce some complexity.

In the end it’s in terms of supply the same whether you burn all NBT and create a part of it new NBT new or redirect some instead of burning them.
In the above calculation 50% are burned, 50% distributed to two different purposes.
If you burn 100% and create 50% by an NBT grant, the supply situation is the same.

Absolutely true, in terms of supply numbers. It will require constant monitoring to answer the question “how much have been burned in three months with fee?” … Which btw is one of the planned features for the data-service, which I hope to resume soon!

That sounds promising and very useful!

I like the concept!
Not having to inflate the coin base is always good.
But it will take tracking and maintenance.

Is this the same as phase 3 of the website? Jordan said that you were working on it, but he had to reprioritize and push it back so you could work on parametric order books instead. He said that phase 3 of the website would cost about $10,000 to build.

This is actually a project that could have used this feature. For example, let’s say we all agreed that we needed to save up $10,000 to build phase 3. Shareholders would then all vote for a specific redirect address. Once enough people were voting for this address, the protocol would ensure that any transaction fees would be collected there. If $10,000 was reached and people stopped voting for that redirect address, the protocol would stop collecting fees and transition back to destroying them. We could then use the 10,000 NuBits to fund phase 3 development. This process would allow us to raise funds without increasing either the NuBits or NuShares supplies. We would just end up recycling the existing NuBits supply for various uses.

On the other hand I think @masterOfDisaster is correct. As long as we know how many NuBits have been destroyed via transaction fees, we could just pass a grant for the 10,000 NBT instead. Redirect addresses would simply make the process automatic. I would say that this is a good idea, but it’s low priority functionality. We can always use grants in place of this, but it would be a lot easier if we had access to the phase 3 website, which should hopefully include lots of blockchain data, price charts and other important info shareholders will need. Number of NuBits destroyed via transaction fees would be some good info to keep track of.

Sold and destroyed NBT are even “better revenue” than only sold NBT :wink:

Is this the same as phase 3 of the website?

It is.

Are you going to be asking for a grant? Here was the quote from Jordan just so you know…

[quote=Jordan Lee]I asked desrever to prioritize implementation of parametric order books over the data service ChicagoSchooler is asking about. Parametric order books are needed to bring NuBit liquidity to pairs other than BTC and fiat (USD, EUR, etc). This feature will be important to the success of B&C Exchange as well as Nu.

In my mind it is questionable whether it should be funded at this time. It is estimated to cost around $10,000. The decision to fund that or not is ultimately up to shareholders. They can fund it directly with a custodial grant if they wish.

I m very aware of the situation . Parametric order book is ready, undergoing testing . Will coordinate with JL for the next priorities, however i have a plan to partially fund development, and may or may not involve a grant. Will share it when it’s a bit more defined


I think it is a natural idea. When the government levies tax money, it does not burn it and print it out once again to create fund and allocate it. It takes it and allocates it directly. Nu should be doing the same to reduce entropy, and therefore time and energy. I would favor such an idea.

1 Like