This proposal presents the idea to remove the 1% tax on Guard.
Proposal Category
Process
About the Team
The KS team consists of individuals with a diverse skill set.
Wizard, Owner and Founder of KnightSwap. Runs a Development Firm that has full capability for Web 2/Web 3 projects from beginning to end
Frumpo/Lord Frumpsalot, Operations, Risk Analysis, Project Manager for KS. A Guardian of TGA.
RealJayDee, Backend Support Manager
V, Community Manager
Arrow, Graphic Artist
Motivation
Currently, all transactions that interact with GUARD incur a 1% tax. This is beneficial in some ways, but at the same time, it presents complications for the overall adoption of GUARD. Reason being that if projects want to avoid the tax, each of the project’s contracts that interact with GUARD has to be whitelisted. This is cumbersome and adds more complexity to the development of that project.
Benefit to Guardian Ecosystem
The main benefit of removing tax is to help further grow the ecosystem in the short and long term as adoption will be easier.
Rationale
The more projects/groups that use GUARD, the larger the ecosystem grows. The trick here is to make it easy for new projects to integrate GUARD. This is why reducing the barrier such as a token tax is important because it is one less friction point that may prevent a project from adding GUARD into their uses.
In addition, when the FDN decides to have GUARD listed on a CEX, token tax cannot exist on the CEX, so removing tax now will better position GUARD for that purpose.
There are a number of ideas that the KS team has explored and discussed that can use GUARD, but the tax is always a pain point. This is especially true for projects that have high volume, but low value transactions such as gaming genre projects. Removing tax may open a new door here as well.
Specifications
GUARD smart contract
Steps to Implement
Do an inventory on all smart contracts currently whitelisted by GUARD smart contract
Schedule removal of all whitelisted contracts
Schedule removal of 1% tax
Wait 3 days for Guard timelock
Push transactions in steps 2 & 3 through
Timeline
5 business day to gather all whitelisted contracts and schedule transactions
3 days for timelock to take effect and push transactions through
Yeah being able to transfer between wallets without incurring a tax would be great! Thanks for the proposal Frumpo, we’re here to guide you through the proposal process so give us a shout if needed! Cheering you on with your second proposal!
My opinion is that the tax is mainly used as way for a projects to generate funds early on due to the volatility that is inherent in new projects. With GUARD being an established project, volatility is minimal now, so any advantage here is minimal when compared to the disadvantages.
My counter argument also is that tax creates a double edged sword. On one hand, the 1% tax gives a revenue stream. On the other hand, the tax also lowers volatility because less trading happens due to it. One option to supplement the tax revenue is to provide LP which in most cases is a 0.2% on all trades. With the assumption that no tax will increase volatility and trading/arbitrage, the 0.2% will still provide a fee income.
In addition, I believe the main goal is to increase the use case of GUARD. To help with that, we should eliminate any barriers for projects that want to use/integrate GUARD. The tax is a barrier because any interaction with GUARD currently would incur the tax unless a whitelist is given which is more time and energy.
Is the LP profits only obtained on removing the LP? would it be better to build up a revenue stream from DEX LP’s and then compounding surplus money into different DEX’s, like Pancake Swap, and earning the revenue from outside sources to lessen sell pressure internally. This could be reviewed based on eco DEX’s strengths.
It was a reply to LordFrumpsalot’s post in reference to an alternatives for the revenue created by the 1% tax. To build a revenue based on LP returns rather than the tax collection.
Would removing Guard tax affect the FDN’s treasury, ability to cover administrative or operational costs or its ability to grant projects in the future?
NickDoc had asked similar question above and my detailed response is further up, but in summary I don’t think the benefits of the tax revenue generation outweigh the benefits of removing tax as the goal is to increase adoption of GUARD and tax is a barrier to it.
I believe FDN can develop some treasury strategy for operational costs in the future that doesn’t rely on the tax.
Thank you frumpo. I did see your response above. Just looking for clarification, as I’m not sure how or how much revenue the FDN needs for operational cost.
I would love taxless guard personally, for many reasons.
Since the foundation is for grant making, I believe the operational costs would primarily be based upon what the DAO has reached a consensus for via passed proposals.
The more passed proposals would mean that most likely the foundation treasury has gone down (the assumption is some proposals will have costs) but IMO that would be a good thing as that would mean more and more people are coming into the Guard ecosystem wanting to build cool things that will add value and hopefully remove suffering in the world.
Converse would also be true. No proposals coming in, potentially less cool stuff being built and the foundation would have a larger stack of assets sitting.
A 1% tax could potentially be an issue for DeFi protocols that want to build on the guard ecosystem and it may be an issue for TradFi companies that want to integrate some sort of Web3 component or Cryptocurrency asset onto their balance sheet.
Would love to hear other’s thoughts and especially those building in Web3 currently
This post has been archived after the 7 day discussion period per the Governance Framework. New replies are no longer allowed. We’re moving into the Draft Phase! Follow this post as new updates will be posted below!
Greg’s Addition
Welcome to these little excerpts. I’ll add little comments here and there aimed at helping you learn the process too. These comments don’t reflect Foundation or SC opinions.
With the idea phase wrapped up, and community feedback and discussion taken into consideration, we’re going into the Draft Phase, where the author will fill out the draft template based on the original GFP Idea, incorporating any feedback provided by the community that helps the idea better serve the GUARD DAO, including, but not limited to, lack of specificity in the proposal. This guides the author in thinking as thoroughly as possible about his proposal. The SC will also help the author catch blindspots and further improve his proposal. This filled-out template will also be used for the Snapshot posting post.
As we go further in each step of the Proposal Process, the idea evolves more and more.
Hey all. Draft stage has completed and this proposal has been updated with the filled proposal template! It will be moved to the Live GFP Stage once posted on Snapshot.
The Snapshot will be taken Thursday evening, so it gives you a few days to do whatever action you feel is right for you to get ready for voting.
Between raids and the lending network, we have 11 million Guard, which is plenty to fill the quorum. Again, Snapshot will be taken this coming Thursday, February 1st. I mention this because a little lower I will be talking about a Snapshot too, and I don’t want anyone to get confused.
What happened in the past, was since reversed, and how a proposal helps solve this issue:
I don’t think anyone noticed, but a Snapshot was taken for this proposal earlier today. Special Council noticed that we slipped up and no announcement made it through to the community for you to have sufficient time to remove your tokens out of your raids in order to participate in the voting. So, we made the call to delete the Snapshot, and have it reposted this coming Thursday like I mentioned above. This will give everyone plenty of time to get ready for voting. The announcement not making it out was totally on us. We dropped the ball on communication. It’s our first time being Special Council, so we’re going to get better, and as we move forward, we will post as close to the schedule planned as possible. The issue with having to move tokens around will be improved with the Guard LP for Voting Proposal, which will be posted on Snapshot this week too, so look forward to sharing your opinion on whether you want to have that pass or not! We’re all in this together, so we’re looking forward to all the future proposals that come from the community that help us dial this all in!
Contract has been submitted for removal of Guard Tax but has not yet been implemented.
The Guard contract has a 3 day timelock. This waiting period serves as a crucial mechanism to ensure transparency, security, and protection against malicious activities or hasty decision-making.
We now wait for the 3 day timelock to take effect. Once the timelock time passes, the removal of Guard Tax will go through, and an update will be posted in this thread.