@LayerZero_Fndn Maybe some people are seeing that their vote will not make a difference and decide that there is no use voting this round. Opting to save the time and the 50 cent fee. If we were closer to reaching the quorum then maybe more people would participate and encourage others to join.
@LayerZero_Fndn 98% voting Yes is surprising (even higher than last vote). I would think more than 2% of people would be interested in keeping the fees as low as possible. I know some No voters abstained because of the quorum mechanic, but still seems to be very lopsided.
@PrimordialAA@arkham Yeah, a lot of great work was put into it from both the hunters and the team. However, the rushed timeline, unclear requirements and limited resources allocated to validating reports did unfortunately result in a lot of the work done by hunters being wasted or underappreciated.
@YouHodler Why set a fixed listings price in the whitepaper instead of allowing it to trade at what the market thinks the token is worth? For example right now the token is trading at around $0.016 on Uniswap, so the $0.3 price seems very optimistic and might result in disappointment.
@hasufl 3 is not possible. It is just standard addresses poisoning. They hope you will copy the wrong address from your transfer history when doing your next transfer.
@lopp No, there is no minimum fee (even $0 fee is possible). The total fee for a transaction must be an integer, but the sat/vb fee doesn’t have to be. If you for example chose a 1 sat fee (21 cents at that price) for a 500 vb transaction that would correspond to a fee of 0.002 sat/vb.
@rudykadoch@PrimordialAA@LayerZero_Core Lower fees means more people will use the product (especially through services like Jumper). This growth benefits token holders. Fee switch can always be enabled later.
Many token holders are also users of the protocol and will benefit from fees staying low.
@CatFace231@LayerZero_Fndn Users obviously wouldn’t want that, but the idea is that token holders could benefit from it. My view is that keeping fees low is also beneficial to token holders as it makes LayerZero more competitive and will result in higher growth for the entire LZ ecosystem. I will vote No.
@LayerZero_Fndn Activation of the protocol fee will make bridging more expensive for users and slow down the growth of LZ. We should stay maximally competitive by waiting another 6 to 18 months before considering this switch, during which time LZ will be primed for an increase in market share.
@danielesesta How about at least fulfilling your promise to the "family", before you launch the 2.0 version which will undoubtedly not end up going much better than the first?
@PrimordialAA Any news about when hunters can expect the tokens from the latest list of (previously) unreviewed reports to be distributed? Given the long wait we have already been though I had hoped things would move a little quicker now that the review process is finished and the list ready.
@PrimordialAA@Fegrlikeswinter@LayerZero_Core What about the unreviewed reports that didn’t make the official list of unreviewed reports? And what about the reports that were dismissed, but later shown to have a high overlap with confirmed sybils on FCFS/Nansen list.