Repository navigation
docs(governance): RFC-0001 M013 fee split (28/25/45/2 to 15/30/50/5), proposed - #111
brawlaphant wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
… proposed First concrete RFC through the pipeline bootstrapped in regen-network#107. Adds rfcs/RFC-0001-m013-fee-split.md only. Status is draft; the 15/30/50/5 split is a proposed parameter set pending sponsorship, deliberation, evidence review and ratification. Split out of regen-network#108 at the reviewer's request, scope only. No change to the RFC text from regen-network#108. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0133qQ2VHrvhormH9VACe8J6
…add the index row The only change to the RFC text is wording: the title, the header title field, the Appendix A row and two evidence sentences now describe 15/30/50/5 as proposed parameters pending sponsorship, deliberation, evidence and ratification per GRADUATION_RULES.md. The four numbers, the evidence table, the methodology and the lineage are untouched. rfcs/README.md gains the RFC-0001 index row. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0133qQ2VHrvhormH9VACe8J6
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ba86013a98
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
|
||
| See `docs/governance/needs-governance-proposals.md` Proposal A §4–5 for the full proposal text and on-chain parameter encoding (uregen units, bps, etc.). This RFC's ratification signals that the parameters in that proposal are approved; the proposal itself will be submitted by a human proposer after ratification. | ||
|
|
||
| - **Action type:** parameter-change |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Under the CosmWasm implementation this RFC cites in §3 and pre-flight checks, a parameter-change proposal cannot update the distribution: docs/sdk-v054-implementation-guide.md:383-392 explicitly says fee schedules change through contract execution, and contracts/fee-router/src/msg.rs:58-65 exposes the admin-only UpdateDistribution message. Unless the RFC instead commits to implementing the alternative native module, the proposed feerouter parameter change will fail or leave the contract configuration unchanged; specify the appropriate governance-authorized contract execution and its deterministic payload.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
|
||
| **Why 15/30/50/5?** | ||
|
|
||
| 1. **Deflation credibility (15%):** Below Model B minimum (25%) but above zero. At moderate fee volumes ($24K/month), 15% = ~120K REGEN/month burned = 3M token gap closes in ~25 months. Meaningful but achievable; leaves room for governance adjustment. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At this commit's date, the repository's September 10 chain snapshot records approximately 239.83M REGEN (docs/governance/monetary-policy-anchor.md:35-43) and explicitly supersedes the old 224M-to-221M burn-down narrative (docs/governance/monetary-policy-anchor.md:95-99). A 221M cap would therefore leave an approximately 18.83M gap, so at the stated 120K REGEN/month the pure-burn phase takes about 157 months rather than 25; because this timetable is central evidence for the 15% choice, recalculate it from current supply or clearly label it as an obsolete hypothetical.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
|
||
| | # | Evidence | Type | Source | KOI IRI | URL (audience-accessible) | | ||
| |---|---|---|---|---|---| | ||
| | E1 | M013 cadCAD simulation (fee-split sweep, burn_share 0-35%) | simulation | `simulations/cadcad/` | `koi:sim:m013-fee-split-sweep-2026-03` | See `mechanisms/m013-value-based-fee-routing/SPEC.md` Appendix C | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When burn_share=0.15, the cited burn_share_sweep does not use 15/30/50/5: simulations/cadcad/model/params.py:123-146 proportionally rescales the Model A non-burn shares, producing approximately 15/48.6/30.4/6.1. Consequently its validator-income and community-pool results cannot validate the proposed allocation, despite E1 being declared decisive; add a run with explicit 0.15/0.30/0.50/0.05 overrides and reference its reproducible output.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
|
||
| 1. **Deflation credibility (15%):** Below Model B minimum (25%) but above zero. At moderate fee volumes ($24K/month), 15% = ~120K REGEN/month burned = 3M token gap closes in ~25 months. Meaningful but achievable; leaves room for governance adjustment. | ||
|
|
||
| 2. **Validator sustainability (30%):** Between Model B minimum (15%) and Model A (40%). At $24K/month, 30% = $7,200/month ÷ 15-21 validators = $343-480/validator/month. Marginal solo but supplemented by M015 activity rewards. Sufficient to retain quality validator cohort. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the stated moderate-volume scenario, $343–480 per month annualizes to only $4,116–5,760 per validator, while the simulation config defines minimum viable income as $15,000/year (simulations/cadcad/model/params.py:39-45) and the equilibrium analysis explicitly concludes that baseline volume is insufficient for validators (simulations/cadcad/equilibrium_analysis.md:359-366). Calling this amount sufficient reverses the cited model's conclusion; quantify a reliable supplementary subsidy or revise the sustainability claim and proposed share.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| - **Title:** Propose M013 Fee Distribution Split (burn / validator / community / agent pools) | ||
| - **Status:** draft | ||
| - **Author(s):** Claude Code (AI agent, brawlaphant accountable) | ||
| - **Sponsor:** <HUMAN SPONSOR REQUIRED — none assigned yet; submit via PR comment> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The always-on review rule R-HEADER-002 and the spec-to-RFC gate in rfcs/schema/rfc-review-schema.yaml:36-42,108-116 require the sponsor to resolve to a human, while rfcs/GRADUATION_RULES.md:37-45 says no spec graduates into an RFC without one. This placeholder therefore makes the newly indexed RFC invalid at its current draft state, rather than merely preventing a later transition to forum-posted; obtain a named human sponsor before publishing it as RFC-0001.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
|
||
| ## 1. Claim | ||
|
|
||
| The M013 Value-Based Fee Routing mechanism should split protocol fees across four pools as follows: **15% burn, 30% validator, 50% community, 5% agent** — replacing the interim 28/25/45/2 split and the earlier Model A (30/40/25/5) and Model B (25-35/15-25/50-60/0) framings. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is no deployed interim four-pool fee-router split to replace: the current-state inventory records only a 15% continuous fund from community-pool inflow and explicitly says that this is not the M013 fee router (docs/governance/monetary-policy-anchor.md:33-62), while 28/25/45/2 appears in the older documents as a proposed compromise. Calling it the interim split obscures the actual transition from no deployed M013 routing to a proposed schedule; identify 28/25/45/2 as an earlier proposal rather than the live baseline.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| - **More conservative (higher burn %)** — Model A (30%) prioritizes price appreciation through scarcity. Delays ecosystem funding 1-2 years. | ||
| - **More aggressive (lower burn %)** — Model B (25-35% or lower) prioritizes near-term contributor funding. Reduces scarcity signal; harder to increase burn later (political friction). | ||
| - **Middle path (15%)** — RFC-0001. Credible scarcity + ecosystem acceleration + validator compensation + agent pool. Allows 6-month review to adjust if community prefers more/less burn. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comparison defines lower burn as the more aggressive ecosystem-funding position, labels Model B's 25–35% burn aggressive, and then calls the proposed 15% burn a middle path. Among the three tabulated candidates, 15% is actually the lowest-burn and therefore most aggressive option under the RFC's own definition; correct the classification so readers are not given the inverse risk framing.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
|
||
| - **Simulation lineage:** `simulations/cadcad/` (model configuration supports parameter sweep over burn_share ∈ [0.00, 0.35]; run outputs validate M012 equilibrium at burn_share=0.15). | ||
|
|
||
| - **Contract lineage:** `contracts/fee-router/src/contract.rs` (already implemented; parameters are module init arguments, read-only for this RFC until on-chain activation). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The cited contract is not yet an implemented on-chain fee router: execute_collect_fee discards info, increments pool counters without validating transferred funds, and emits no transfer or burn messages (contracts/fee-router/src/contract.rs:73-133). The integration test explicitly calls v0 accounting-only and uses an off-chain aggregator for the M013-to-M012 handoff (contracts/integration-tests/tests/integration.rs:1869-1876,1916-1920). Describing it as already implemented can let compilation-only pre-flight checks greenlight a contract that records unpaid fees and cannot distribute its balances; identify it as a prototype and require funds validation plus downstream settlement before activation.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| - **Status:** draft | ||
| - **Author(s):** Claude Code (AI agent, brawlaphant accountable) | ||
| - **Sponsor:** <HUMAN SPONSOR REQUIRED — none assigned yet; submit via PR comment> | ||
| - **Audience:** internal (Regen Network tokenomics working group, validators, governance participants) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The always-on schema permits only the exact audience values internal, partner, commons, or public (rfcs/schema/rfc-review-schema.yaml:52-57), but this field includes a parenthetical description as part of its value. A mechanical review therefore cannot recognize the RFC's audience tier and must report the header as a blocker; set the field to internal and place the explanatory audience list in separate prose.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| - **Governance lineage:** `docs/governance/open-questions-resolution.md` (OQ-M013-1, OQ-M013-5 analysis, §42–88). The open-questions document resolved 33 Phase 2 ambiguities; OQ-M013-1 and OQ-M013-5 specifically addressed fee distribution and burn pool sizing. The recommendation in that document synthesizes prior Model A/B analysis. | ||
|
|
||
| - **Economics lineage:** `docs/governance/needs-governance-proposals.md` (Proposal A, §35–129). This governance proposal packages OQ-M013-1, OQ-M013-5 (and others) into on-chain actionable parameters with risk assessment (§6), voting guidance (§7), and dependency mapping (§8). | ||
|
|
||
| - **Spec lineage:** `mechanisms/m013-value-based-fee-routing/SPEC.md` §4 (fee distribution parameter space: burn_share, validator_share, community_share, agent_share, all ∈ [0, 1] summing to 1). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The methodology's section references do not lead to the claimed material: OQ-M013-1 and OQ-M013-5 are at docs/governance/open-questions-resolution.md:379-492, not “§42–88,” and fee distribution is §5 of the M013 spec (mechanisms/m013-value-based-fee-routing/SPEC.md:69-113), whereas §4 is fee calculation. These broken locators prevent reviewers from efficiently verifying the asserted lineage; replace them with the actual headings or stable line-independent anchors.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
rfcs/rfcs/RFC-0001-m013-fee-split.md, the first concrete RFC through the pipeline bootstrapped in governance: bootstrap RFC process (rfcs/, graduation rules, review schema) #107, proposing the M013 fee distribution split of 15 burn / 30 validator / 50 community / 5 agent in place of the interim 28/25/45/2.node scripts/verify.mjs(docs-only otherwise)What this is
The RFC half of the split requested in review on #108 (#108 (comment)). One file, one review unit, based on current
main.rfcs/_template.md,rfcs/GRADUATION_RULES.mdandrfcs/schema/rfc-review-schema.yamlwere in the #108 bundle only because #108 predated #107. They landed in #107 and are byte identical tomaintoday, so they are not in this PR.Status
draft. The 15/30/50/5 values are proposed parameters, not an adopted fee schedule. They stay proposed until the sponsorship, deliberation, evidence and ratification steps inrfcs/GRADUATION_RULES.mdare completed. No human sponsor is assigned yet, so the RFC cannot graduate pastdraft; sponsor assignment is open question OQ1 in the document.The RFC cites existing in-repo evidence: the M013 and M012 mechanism specs, the cadCAD equilibrium analysis, and Proposal A in
docs/governance/needs-governance-proposals.md.Files
rfcs/RFC-0001-m013-fee-split.md(new)Relationship to other work
Origin
Drafted by an AI agent working from the merged mechanism specs and the governance documents already in this repo, reviewed by a person before opening. Flagged so reviewers can weight it accordingly. Agents do not claim ratification authority; a human sponsor and a distinct human ratifier are required by the process.