CIP 107 - Burning a DAO-adjustable proportion of the storage collateral when refunding.

[Oneofall]

Conflux CTO’s tweet about the published CIP107 (link) with the title: “Burning a DAO-adjustable proportion of the storage collateral when refunding.” seems like a great step toward reducing CFX’ circulating supply in the long-run and should really benefit us investors and holders in the long-run

Although the Conflux Foundation has already burned close to 500 Million CFX via the Voting Proposals 11, 7, 4 and 2 (see: https://www.confluxhub.io/governance/vote/proposals), it seems like not many holders, investors and potential new investors are aware of it. Hopefully the CIP will be implemented to increase a more steady burning mechanism of CFX in the long-run and who knows, maybe it’ll lead to more burning mechanisms in the long-run as Ming stated in his recent twitter thread

https://www.confluxscan.io/pow-charts/circulating

Would love to heard more opinions from the community regarding the latest CIP, and see what the general sediment is on this proposal! It seems like the twitter people are generally in favour of CIP107 being implement, are you?

• FOR the burning mechanism stated in CIP107
• AGAINST the burning mechanism stated in CIP107

[cccc]

Assuming m CFX is the storage collateral volume associated with some states and p is the proportion of the storage collateral to be burned. When the states are released in a transaction, m*(1-p) CFX will be refunded to the owner of the states, and the left will be burned. The p can be voted as 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.

Should p = 0 be a voteable option if this is strictly a burn proposal?

[GLM]

A question from user in Discord, “Burning a DAO-adjustable proportion of the storage collateral when refunding”

The question is “What triggers refunding?”

Also, so the community can understand better do we have any guidance on frequency, amount or type of transaction that generally releases storage collateral?

Some background: (please mention if anything is incorrect)

Whenever data is stored on-chain, the address creating the transaction pays for the storage collateral to store any new data on-chain, viewable on scan as “Storage Collateralize Fee”

Only when the data value related to storage collateral changes does that collateral get released, viewable on scan as “Storage Released”

For example some of the NFT contracts have 100k+ CFX storage collateral.

[Darwin]

According to Conflux’s design, it seems the refunding means as the the literal suggests:

1. the owner of storage entry is changed, or
2. the storage is released

For example, if user A writes to a storage entry which is originially owned by user B, user B will get refunded. Before CIP-107 is conducted, the storage collateral will be 100% refunded. And after the conduct, a proportion of the refunded part will be burnt

[fangln0707]

So how much cfx the storage fee consume in total till now, i don’t think the number is more than 1 million

[cnrrdnzz]

Yakınnnnn