subDAO Onboarding Fees HIP Draft #580
Conversation
“up to” indicates that the lockup duration may be extended by any amount that results in a total duration not greater than 48 months.
clarify that cooldown may be started or stopped at any time independently of the 3x landrush multiplier
change subhead
Hip 76 edit 1
Create XXXX-subdao-onboarding-fees.md
|
Dang, great work! I was going to make suggestions inline, but it would get messy quickly. instead, see this gist of some edits Proposed edits:
The swap to use the subDAO name rather than specific wireless technologies is intended to conform to the existing network and subDAO language and accommodate future hardware to preserve the longevity of this HIP. |
replace “5G” with “MOBILE” and “LoRa” with “IOT”
|
Thanks, looks great! I think I made all the changes you suggested. |
vincenzospaghetti
requested review from
abhay,
ChewingGlass,
deasydoesit and
samgutentag
XXXX-subdao-onboarding-fees.md
Outdated
| This prevents the tokenomics based on DAO Utility Score, as defined in HIP-51, from working as designed. | ||
|
|
||
| HIP-XX solves this problem by requiring that Hotspots participating in a particular Helium subDAO must burn an onboarding fee towards that subDAO. Specific fee schedules will be determined by subDAO governance. A mechanism is specified whereby the existing MOBILE Hotspots may be onboarded retroactively. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
when you have a direct number for the mobile onboarding I would put it high in summary - give the most important information right away.
XXXX-subdao-onboarding-fees.md
Outdated
| - Existing and future IOT and MOBILE Hotspot owners, who are affected by the clarification of fees and the MOBILE DAO Utility Score. | ||
| - MOBILE Hotspot manufacturers, who may need to budget for onboarding fees as decided by the MOBILE subDAO. | ||
| - Anyone designing a future subDAO. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would even add:
- Mobile subDAO contributors and future veMOBILE positions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
added the first bit, think the second is a bit farfetched
XXXX-subdao-onboarding-fees.md
Outdated
| ## Independent Onboarding | ||
|
|
||
| If a Hotspot participates in one or more Helium subDAOs, it must be onboarded to each subDAO individually, and the onboarding fee in DC as set by each subDAO must be accordingly burned separately towards that subDAO. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
...with a $X fee...?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can’t give a $ value, it depends on subDAO governance in the general case
XXXX-subdao-onboarding-fees.md
Outdated
| As specified in HIP-51, each Hotspot contributes to the DAO Utility Score of its subDAO according to its onboarding fee. For the purposes of this calculation, Hotspots which participate in multiple subDAOs shall be considered as multiple independent Hotspots, one for each subDAO, and each shall contribute separately to the DAO Utility Score of its subDAO with the onboarding fee burned towards that subDAO. No onboarding fee shall be double-counted towards multiple subDAOs. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Fees Are Decided By subDAOs | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you lay out what this might look like? Does this mean folks are following the current process for governance? And how might they set a scheduled? Can we give them a template to use for the schedule?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not discussing subDAO governance here. Our point is just that one Hotspot that operates in multiple subDAOs must onboard individually to each subDAO and pay a fee to each subDAO, and is therefore counted separately in each subDAO. Existing HIPs basically apply, just didn’t deal with the fact that one physical device may be “Hotspot” to multiple subDAOs.
XXXX-subdao-onboarding-fees.md
Outdated
| Each subDAO may set a schedule of onboarding fees for its participating Hotspots through subDAO governance. All onboarding fees must be paid in DC burn from HNT according to procedures specified by the Helium DAO. | ||
|
|
||
| Subject to change through subDAO governance by the MOBILE subDAO, the onboarding fee per MOBILE Hotspot to the MOBILE subDAO is $40 as defined in HIP-53, independent of other subDAO onboarding fees paid by the same Hotspot, such as the $40 IOT network onboarding fee that has been paid by the IOT component of existing MOBILE Hotspots under the current implementation. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The $40 fee here needs to be higher in the text and mentioned a few times - this is what the reader is waiting to see.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct, I added it to the Summary.
XXXX-subdao-onboarding-fees.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Paying the Missing MOBILE Onboarding Fees | ||
|
|
||
| In cooperation with Hotspot manufacturers, Helium Foundation may perform one or several one-time burn operations which cover, in total, the $40 onboarding fee for each MOBILE Hotspot which has been onboarded to the IOT network under the existing implementation, and thus neglected to pay for onboarding to the MOBILE subDAO. Once these fees are paid, a corresponding number of MOBILE Hotspots shall be considered, for the purpose of the DAO Utility Score, to be onboarded to the MOBILE network. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This might need to be clarified or check with Foundation - this looks like its saying the Foundation would burn that fee - which could be fine but doesn't have a precedent in the network.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To clarify the intent, I suggest that Foundation perform the actual burn operation, acting as a gatekeeper. The necessary funds may be contributed by manufacturers or other entities. We trust Foundation to burn the correct amount as specified here, i. e., ca. 3,963 or so MOBILE hotspots x $40. We’ll change this if Foundation (or somebody else) comes up with a different way of resolving the missing fees.
|
one more thing @ferebee - need to add Success Metrics section: Success MetricsWhat metrics can be used to measure the success of this design? Are any new ETL reports needed to measure the success? What should we measure to prove a performance increase? |
vincenzospaghetti
requested review from
vincenzospaghetti
and removed request for
abhay,
samgutentag and
deasydoesit
No description provided.