Proposal: The unit price of bandwidth and energy proposed to be increased to 200 sun

[fbsobreira]

Simple Summary

Adjust the unit price of energy and bandwidth to 5 times the current price, after change, the fee of 1 bandwidth(or 1 energy) will be 200 sun.

Motivation

Increase in resource fee would further promote the freezing rate, reduce the TRX circulation, reduce the low-value transactions, and improve the security and reliability of the TRON network.

Timeline

We hope in the next two weeks, everyone can express their opinions and discuss this issue here. A voting request will be initiated based on the discussion results. The estimated timeline Creation time of the voting request: 9th Feb. 2021 Effective time of voting request: 12th Feb. 2021

How to Initialize the Voting Request

• Change the unit price of bandwidth and energy to 140 sun
  • createProposal 3 140 11 140 47 5000000000

Background

The unit price of energy and bandwidth was increased from 10 sun to 40 sun on 25th Nov. 2020. Within these 2 months, TRX’s daily output has been greatly reduced due to more resource fees burning. The number of low-value transactions has been greatly reduced. Security has also been improved with the increase of the freezing rate. At the same time, the transaction volume has continued to rise, the increase in resource fees has a positive effect on the network.

Although the situation of spam transactions has improved, it still exists. Here is one example of low-value transactions which is certainly a waste of resource. This contract has averaged more than 1 million calls per day since this week, and per community feedback, there are more than 25 million requests in 4 hours. And the most of these transactions are invalid transactions which will only bring traffic to the network and reduce the network security and availability. The unit price increase will greatly increase the cost of such transactions and curb such spam transactions.

Check detail at: https://tronscan.org/#/contract/TNNxU7Jez9Q4bXREBrBxrmTLnzpAtKDRhw/analysis

Here is the status of overall freezing rate. Please check more detailed info from tronscan if you are interested. https://tronscan.io/#/data/charts/OverallFreezingRate

Here is the status of daily energy consumption from freezing TRX. check detail at: https://tronscan.io/#/data/stats/EnergyConsume

Here is the data of the entire network transaction volume in recent months, after the unit price of energy and bandwidth was increased from 10 sun to 40 sun, the transaction volume of the entire network did not decrease, indicating that the appropriate increase in resource price will not cause a substantial decrease in transaction volume

Inflation Rate Calculation

	2020.11.16~2020.11.23	2020.01.16~2020.01.26	Prediction
The price of bandwidth and energy	10 sun	40 sun	200 sun
TRX daily increase	28792*176	28792*176	28792*176
Energy amount from TRX Burning	49,361,585,043	37,285,168,266	37,285,168,266
Bandwidth amount from TRX Burning	378,214,652	359,010,894	359,010,894
TRX net increase	28792176 - (49361585043 + 378214652) 10 / 1000000 = 4569994	28792176 - (37285168266 + 359010894) 40 / 1000000 = 3561624	28792176 - (37285168266 + 359010894) 200 / 1000000 = -2461443
Inflation rate	4569994 * 365 / 100B  = 1.668%	3561624 * 365 / 100B  = 1.299%	-2461443 * 365 / 100B  = -0.898%

Freezing Rate Prediction

	2020.11.16~2020.11.23	2020.01.16~2020.01.26	Future
Energy and Bandwidth price	10 sun	40 sun	200 sun
Freezing rate	25.05%	28.55%	42.64%
Freezing Amount	25,389,200,153	28,955,264,046	43,219,519,618

Currently there is no evidence which shows the specific relationship between the change in resource costs and the freezing rate, so the estimated freezing amount is based on assumption, here we assume the relationship between resource cost and freezing amount is a linear relationship, so here is the calculation: Freezing amount increased 3,566,063,893 after changing the price from 10 sun to 40 sun.
Change from 40 sun to 200 sun, we assume the freezing amount increase will be 3,566,063,893 * 5

SR Discussion

This proposal is discussed on TRON SR meeting 2. Please check the SR discussions from the meeting note if you are interested. https://github.com/tronprotocol/pm/blob/master/SR%20Meetings/SR%20Meeting%2002.md

Comparison

Tron Energy Price VS Ethereum Gas Price

TRON Energy Price	Ethereum Gas Price(Average of the past month)
40sun($0.00000112)	109G wei($0.00013407)

The current Ethereum network resource cost is 119 times that of TRON. If the unit price of TRON energy is adjusted to 200 sun, the TRON network resource cost will still be only 1/24 of Ethereum.

Important Notes:

Please note that the adjustment of the unit price of resources will affect the amount of energy consumed in the contract call. Please adjust the “fee_limit” parameter in time to prevent “OUT_OF_ENERGY” errors caused by inappropriate “fee_limit” after the unit price of resources increases.

Welcome to discuss.

[vae520283995]

Resolutely opposed, now every trc20 transfer requires a handling fee of 0.5-1.2trx, if it is increased by 5 times, the fee will be 2.5-6trx, although it is much lower than ethereum, but for exchanges, such a large-scale trading platform Said it will burn a lot of trx

[jericholin]

抗议！坚决反对！！不要在做死的道路上越走越远。

[dmf3030]

Absolutely opposed to this. The feedback from users has already been negative in terms of the previous rate increase. Users are using the swaps less and finding that they trade less on Trontrade and Poloniex. I've heard from countless people that they are finding much more friction in actually interacting with tron, where previously you didn't need to think about tx costs and that was a huge selling point for new users. As a dev who has frozen every scrap of TRX, and thats a considerable portion, and is still coming up short on energy, if this increase were to go through I would likely not be able to continue doing what I am doing. This would not inspire me to buy more TRX to freeze because I literally can't.

I think in short this would make Tron less competitive with chains like BSC and other low cost chains and thats where Tron can get really hurt. Sure we'll still be cheaper than Eth, but thats not hard, we need to stay easy to use and cheaper than the majority of fast chains.

This also assumes that just because the previous increase didn't dramatically decrease transactions, that another increase wouldn't have a deleterious effect. I would counter that the previous increase took us right up to the edge of user and dev threshold but that another massive increase would put us well past the point where you would see a dramatic drop off in transactions. Furthermore that contract with massive calls is also burning a bunch of TRX, so let them burn it.

[NathanHo1024]

Absolutely opposed, I'm currently consuming 3000TRX a day, 5 times 15000, I can't afford it. If it goes up, I'll going to the BSC

[btc6688]

坚决反对，手续费想和eth比自己有什么优势。涨成功果断抛弃trx链回归eth链。垃圾刚刚涨价4倍又涨价5倍。加起来就20倍了，在过两个月就100倍了。就靠手续费过日子了

[btc6688]

必须抵制这种枪击行为半年20倍

[btc6688]

现在单次触发合约手续费就18trx了，涨价了还能存活，辛辛苦苦发展的会员用户资金都消耗在手续费上了，钱赚不到还背锅，还不如去eth

[kunlunxuejue11]

I think everyone has overlooked an important issue At present, exchanges have frozen a large number of TRX in order to vote, and while freezing, they have also obtained a lot of resources, but they do not use these resources. Formally because of this, the cost for others to freeze TRX to obtain resources has become higher.

I think TIP-207 is a good proposal. The freezing can only get one of votes, bandwidth or energy. In this way, everyone can freeze according to their own needs, which may greatly reduce the cost of freezing TRX to obtain resources because most people will choose to freeze for voting.

[Omo-Coc]

Raising transaction fees will be good in the long run and TRX will be more valuable. Inevitably, it will hurt some developers' interests. I hope there is not so much of a rush, is it possible to raise it 3x first?

[joker-gdb]

It’s terrible, a 5 times increase will definitely be detrimental to some small developers, but I don’t think low prices are a good thing

[btc6688]

现在单次触发合约就0.5$了增加5倍就是2$如果trx的价格翻倍就是4$涨可以太频繁了刚刚涨两个月，现在在涨价就是20倍了，没有涨4倍之前市场上还能经常看到有波场的dapp现在基本上没有新的dapp出现了，如果再一次涨价成功，市场上不会在看不到新的dapp出现

[call-me-nobody]

I would vote in "Reduce the circulation".

Based on the calculation, after changing the unit price to 200 sun, there will be no inflation anymore.

and currently, the only way to destroy TRX is to burn it. that would definitely a positive impact on Tron network. Since it is called discussion, I would say 200 sun might be a little high, if the aim is to reduce the circulation, here is another angle :

This is how they calculate the TRX net increase: 28792176 - (37285168266 + 359010894) 200 / 1000000 = -2461443 if we change the price we can easily see the threshold of TRX net increase.

• 130 SUN : 173648.7092
• 140 SUN: -202793.0824

means if we change the unit price to 140 SUN, then there will be no inflation. so I would go with 140 SUN instead of 200 SUN.

Let us see more opinions here

[Lucienest]

I oppose the idea of increasing it to 5 times, we should stick with 40 SUN, It's detrimental for both developers and end-users. And it defeats the purpose of TRON which is known to be cheaper transaction fees.

Instead of increasing, we can look at the TIP-207

[otakuinny]

The people proposing we should take a look at TIP-207 don't seem to understand the main issue here, which is to discourage spam txns.

I propose looking into a progressive fee increase model where the txn fee increases progressively when an account makes a large number of txns in a short amount of time. Here's how it works.

The energy price for the first txn an account makes will start at 40 sun. If the same account makes X number of txns in Y seconds, the energy price increases by Z for subsequent txns. And if the account keeps making X number of txns in Y seconds, it'll keep increasing by Z every Y seconds.

E.g. If we assume X as 10,000 and Y as 3,600 seconds (1 hr) and Z as 5 sun, then, if an account makes 10K txns or more in 3,600 seconds, then the energy price for the subsequent txns from that account will be increased by 5 sun, which makes it 45 sun. If the account continues to make txns at the same rate, then the energy price will keep increasing by 5 sun every 3,600 seconds. If the account stops making 10K txns in 3600 seconds, then the energy price decreases by 5 sun every 3600 seconds until it reaches to 40 sun again.

The X, Y and Z values should be configurable just like the energy fee.

[a49688448]

Support this proposal. Through increase the price of bandwidth and energy, the whole chain is more secure. Moreover, this proposal cost TRX deflation, the TRX price will also rise. And after increase, the cost is just 200 SUN, is still cheap enough.

[tronfamily]

We are completely against an increase in costs because:

It does not slow down inflation in the long run but massively increases it. Reasons: Already implemented in version 20 of the FullNode:

• Black hole will be deactivated. Link
• Fee forwarding to SR (1-27) Link
• No burning of fees

Advantages:

• SR 1-27, which is already producing, will generate much more revenue than before.

Disadvantages:

• Inflation increases
• Fees increase
• existing projects as well as smaller start-ups are destroyed or hindered
• attractiveness decreases

Calculation example: A transaction without energy or bandwidth costs approximately until now:

TRC10 transfer: before: 0.01128 TRX after: 0.05640 TRX

This corresponds to a minimum quantity of: 4.7 BTT to send. (cost price)

TRC20 Transfer: (USDT) before: 0.01128 TRX + 1.18524 TRX = 1.19652 TRX after: 0.0564 TRX + 5.92620 TRX = 5.98260 TRX

This corresponds to a minimum quantity of: 0.16 USDT. (cost price)

A reward distribution or dividend distribution has significantly higher costs, that also affects trading on well-known decentralized exchanges such as TronTrade or PoloniDex.

Quote: "The current Ethereum network resource cost is 119 times that of TRON. If the unit price of TRON energy is adjusted to 200 sun, the TRON network resource cost will still be only 1/24 of Ethereum."

Ethereum should not be a comparison.

Average transaction cost for coins worth 100 USDT.

LTC = 0.0003 USD Average transaction fee is 0.05209%, median fee is 0.00203% = 0.0003 USD

BCH = 0.0010 USD Average transaction fee is 0.00940%, median fee is 0.00323% = 0.0010 USD

TRX = 0.1600 USD

BTC = 0.6111 USD Average transaction fee is 4.20549%, median fee is 3.76219% = 0.6111 USD

ETH = 2.0473 USD Average transaction fee is 2.26090%, median fee is 2.29889% = 2.0473 USD

Source: http://cryptofees.net/

Counterproposal to prevent meaningless transactions:

• Increase the fees for creating a TRC10 token (from 1024TRX to 5120TRX).

• Increase the fees for deploying a SmartContract(from 1024TRX to 5120TRX)

• Preventing arbitrary listing on JustSwap.

Rationale: A thoughtful project also invests $150 for a token creation.

[cest-bon-bon]

@fbsobreira Thanks for providing such detailed data as well as the analysis, this proposal is very valuable to see that the circulation of TRX will be greatly reduced and TRX will be safer and valuable.

[Imbaexchange]

First of all thanks @fbsobreira for the detailed information.

In one hand yes ETH is an competitor and yes maybe at the firts view transaction fees will be still lower than ETH. But for me Tron stands for fast low cost transactions.

I think it is to early the change the fee structur again. in my opinion we should now work on the demand.

[Benson0224]

@tronfamily

I don't think this one can be a reason for your objection

It is just a proposal, even the code is there, but it does not mean this feature will be enabled. at least now it is still disabled.

Justin also disagrees with this proposal on his Twitter.

Twitter link: https://twitter.com/justinsuntron/status/1351419341007323136

[Benson0224]

We are completely against an increase in costs because:

It does not slow down inflation in the long run but massively increases it. Reasons: Already implemented in version 20 of the FullNode:

• Black hole will be deactivated. Link
• Fee forwarding to SR (1-27) Link
• No burning of fees

I would say there must be some misunderstanding of this item:

• Black hole will be deactivated.Link

This is from TIP-222, if you check the detailed implementation you can easily understand that this proposal is just to change the storage location of Burning TRX, previously it is storage in blackhole address, but in this proposal, it changes it to the database. all the burning TRX will still be removed from the total circulation no matter it is stored in blackhole address or database.

[tronfamily]

Yes. The storage change to TransactionFeePool and is coupled with: SR Fee

Or please explain, why the code is prepared for this but Justin Sun (Founder) don´t want this changes.

[KI5FPL]

Good point to reduce junk transactions.

[woaichixigua07]

Supporting this proposal, although it is difficult for us to accept the increase in the handling fee for a while, we must realize that increasing the handling fee will have great benefits for the future development of TRON, making the transactions on the TRON chain more valuable and making the TRON chain more valuable. The assets on the Internet are more valuable, and it is us that will ultimately benefit.

[joanna459]

I totally agree with this proposal. As you said, this would further promote the freezing rate, reduce the TRX circulation, reduce the low-value transactions, and improve the security and reliability of the TRON network. That will b awesome for us! What's more, the blockchain will be more secure, and price of TRX will rise soon! 200 SUN is not that expensive I think, I can accept this proposal! Go, TRON!

[dkealervdsf]

I think this is a good suggestion. Although increasing the the unit price of energy and bandwidth to 5 times the current price, it is actually only 200 SUN. This will also reduce the low value transactions, which will improve the security and reliability of TRON network.

[kjc233]

感觉波场调整到200还是有一定意义，就动机来说：减少不必要的交易，比如频繁进行一些没太大意义的合约，进一步提高链的安全性和稳定性，感觉还是挺符合链发展的一个趋势。

[gnepnuy]

I propose to raise it to 20000 sun. I don't want to change my code all the time

[Vita-Diva]

I don't care about inflation, but I can agree with this if it genuinely reduces trash transactions. We've met more server busy recently than ever before. The reduction of high frequency but valueless transactions means our freezing is getting more resources, and of course, the network will be smooth.

[cathy-lishipu]

Resolutely opposed, now every trc20 transfer requires a handling fee of 0.5-1.2trx, if it is increased by 5 times, the fee will be 2.5-6trx, although it is much lower than ethereum, but for exchanges, such a large-scale trading platform Said it will burn a lot of trx

Despite increasing the unit price of energy and bandwidth, it’s still dozens of times cheaper than Ether. The impact is even less for platforms with a large-scale trading like exchanges.

[dmf3030]

I think one issue here is that people take at face value that the proposed math in the main post is correct. Nothing ever moves linearly. Just because you didnt see a massive drop off in transactions on the network from the last fee increase does not mean that a further increase won't serious reduce transactions and not just spam transactions. We want people to use the network, Tron becomes deflationary by onboarding users and having many transactions. Raising prices is counterintuitive to bringing in projects and fresh users. If we're really concerned about spam tx then look at some other more creative options. Penalties for successive failed transactions could be interesting, or increase fees for transactions that happen too quickly.

Still I dont believe this is an issue that will be solved by increasing fees, you will cut the legs out of the network, reduce valid users and user interaction and that will reduce transactions and freezing as people leave the network for other cheaper options. I'd expect a much more modest gain in burned TRX than the original post proposed and it would come at the high cost of handicapping the network.

[dmf3030]

It also feels like many of the comments here are echoing Tron talking points in a way that feels like fake accounts astro turfing and then going around and upvoting all the matching comments.

[Lucienest]

I propose to raise it to 20000 sun. I don't want to change my code all the time

I hope you are aware of what are you talking about. We can't just throw random numbers here.

[btc6688]

A few months ago, the wave field ecology was so hot that no new projects appeared after the price increased by 4 times and the handling fee increased by 5 times. It may be that there are no developers. It's similar to eth's handling fee. Why did we choose a notorious chain instead of eth chain? Now the only advantage is that the handling fee is low and the handling fee is high. The only advantage is no more. We propose to withdraw our team immediately Wave field chain, emptying more than 80 million TRX pledged by the team, we are the TRX chain forced by eth's high handling charges. If this proposal is successful, we will not hesitate to abandon the TRX chain and choose the current low-cost fire coin ecological chain

[btc6688]

None of the projects proposed this time are for hoarding money, and developers are not willing to go up,

[saville77]

How feasible are the following suggestions?

1. Increase the fees for creating a TRC10 token (from 1024TRX to 5120TRX).

2. Increase the fees for deploying a SmartContract(from 1024TRX to 5120TRX)

3. Preventing arbitrary listings on JustSwap.

My understanding is that by doing this it should have the following effect.

1. pointless contracts that consume resources are no longer easy or fun to create.
2. people still have an affordable way to got into crypto and engage with dapps and DEFi without worrying about fees.
3. I would still be able to move my <5 TRX transactions without having to worry about fees.

[Benson0224]

Resolutely opposed, now every trc20 transfer requires a handling fee of 0.5-1.2trx, if it is increased by 5 times, the fee will be 2.5-6trx, although it is much lower than ethereum, but for exchanges, such a large-scale trading platform Said it will burn a lot of trx

For most exchanges, transaction fees are shared by users. Although the transaction volume is large, it should not have a major impact on the exchange.

[Benson0224]

A few months ago, the wave field ecology was so hot that no new projects appeared after the price increased by 4 times and the handling fee increased by 5 times. It may be that there are no developers. It's similar to eth's handling fee. Why did we choose a notorious chain instead of eth chain? Now the only advantage is that the handling fee is low and the handling fee is high. The only advantage is no more. We propose to withdraw our team immediately Wave field chain, emptying more than 80 million TRX pledged by the team, we are the TRX chain forced by eth's high handling charges. If this proposal is successful, we will not hesitate to abandon the TRX chain and choose the current low-cost fire coin ecological chain

I believe there will always be more and cheaper chains for everyone to choose and use, but low cost is not the only deciding factor. As one of the mainstream public chains, low cost is only one of Tron's many advantages. The strong infrastructure and Ecosystem are also important reasons why TRON attracts many developers.

After reading your comments, I believe you must have a lot of your own opinions, but from your comments, no useful information has been obtained. This proposal is still in the discussion stage. If you have different opinions, please state your views based on facts from multiple angles. For example, what are your expectations for a reasonable unit price? What is the reason, Or what is the real difficulty caused by the price increase for your project? can you share more detail?

If you are unwilling to disclose project information, we can also have a private conversation. You can send your telegram id or other contact information to my Github account mailbox. We can discuss there. Thanks a lot.

[joker-gdb]

We are completely against an increase in costs because:

It does not slow down inflation in the long run but massively increases it. Reasons: Already implemented in version 20 of the FullNode:

• Black hole will be deactivated. Link
• Fee forwarding to SR (1-27) Link
• No burning of fees

Advantages:

• SR 1-27, which is already producing, will generate much more revenue than before.

Disadvantages:

• Inflation increases
• Fees increase
• existing projects as well as smaller start-ups are destroyed or hindered
• attractiveness decreases

Calculation example: A transaction without energy or bandwidth costs approximately until now:

TRC10 transfer: before: 0.01128 TRX after: 0.05640 TRX

This corresponds to a minimum quantity of: 4.7 BTT to send. (cost price)

TRC20 Transfer: (USDT) before: 0.01128 TRX + 1.18524 TRX = 1.19652 TRX after: 0.0564 TRX + 5.92620 TRX = 5.98260 TRX

This corresponds to a minimum quantity of: 0.16 USDT. (cost price)

A reward distribution or dividend distribution has significantly higher costs, that also affects trading on well-known decentralized exchanges such as TronTrade or PoloniDex.

Quote: "The current Ethereum network resource cost is 119 times that of TRON. If the unit price of TRON energy is adjusted to 200 sun, the TRON network resource cost will still be only 1/24 of Ethereum."

Ethereum should not be a comparison.

Average transaction cost for coins worth 100 USDT.

LTC = 0.0003 USD Average transaction fee is 0.05209%, median fee is 0.00203% = 0.0003 USD

BCH = 0.0010 USD Average transaction fee is 0.00940%, median fee is 0.00323% = 0.0010 USD

TRX = 0.1600 USD

BTC = 0.6111 USD Average transaction fee is 4.20549%, median fee is 3.76219% = 0.6111 USD

ETH = 2.0473 USD Average transaction fee is 2.26090%, median fee is 2.29889% = 2.0473 USD

Source: http://cryptofees.net/

Counterproposal to prevent meaningless transactions:

• Increase the fees for creating a TRC10 token (from 1024TRX to 5120TRX).
• Increase the fees for deploying a SmartContract(from 1024TRX to 5120TRX)
• Preventing arbitrary listing on JustSwap.

Rationale: A thoughtful project also invests $150 for a token creation.

“It does not slow down inflation in the long run but massively increases it. Reasons: Already implemented in version 20 of the FullNode: Black hole will be deactivated. Link Fee forwarding to SR (1-27) Link No burning of fees“

I don’t agree with this statement. The reason you said is just hypothesis, because the allocation of rewards to SR requires a proposal to open, which may not necessarily be open.

[Lucienest]

@saville77

How feasible are the following suggestions?

1. Increase the fees for creating a TRC10 token (from 1024TRX to 5120TRX).
2. Increase the fees for deploying a SmartContract(from 1024TRX to 5120TRX)
3. Preventing arbitrary listings on JustSwap.

My understanding is that by doing this it should have the following effect.

1. pointless contracts that consume resources are no longer easy or fun to create.
2. people still have an affordable way to got into crypto and engage with dapps and DEFi without worrying about fees.
3. I would still be able to move my <5 TRX transactions without having to worry about fees.

SmartContract deployment cost depends on bytecode, increase the fee will have serious consequences. If TRON couldn't keep the fee feasible it might take over by other competitive blockchains like BSC. And pointless contract argument is pointless as it is. We're drastically increasing the fee while telling that people won't worry about it? weird.

[bondibox]

It is just a proposal, even the code is there, but it does not mean this feature will be enabled. at least now it is still disabled.

Justin also disagrees with this proposal on his Twitter.

Twitter link: https://twitter.com/justinsuntron/status/1351419341007323136

And yet Justin recommended this implementation in his November letter published on Medium This messaging is wildly inconsistent, and that's a charitable way of putting it. I can not see any differences between what he proposed and TIP 196. When he says he "currently" disagrees with the TIP, will that change after fees are increased by 5x? Is there a different implementation he would like to see?

[joker-gdb]

The price increase from 40sun to 200sun is too big, I suggest to increase to 160 sun.

First of all, I think that a low fee is not a good thing for a public chain. Although many developers oppose the price increase, they always hope the fees are cheap enough because they need lower operating costs. However, from the perspective of the development of the public chain itself, low fees will attract many capital projects, which will cause great damage to the reputation of TRON. We have seen many such situations in the past.

However, whether the price increase will cause a devastating blow to the existing ecology is also unpredictable. so, for more stable development, it is should not to increase it so much. For example, the unit price of resources first increases to 160 sun, and then observes Whether the ecology develops in a good direction, and then decide how to increase or decrease.

what do you think?

[woaichixigua07]

I support the above view, because the price increase is too big, as I said before, although it is difficult for us to accept the increase in the handling fee for a while, we must realize that increasing the handling fee will have great benefits for the future development of TRON, making the transactions on the TRON chain more valuable and making the TRON chain more valuable, so the assets on TRON will increase in value. Such results are actually beneficial to us.

[call-me-nobody]

Yes, you really have a valid point. Low cost really provides huge living space for malicious and fraudulent projects. In the long run, the growth of TRON requires stronger teams with more funds to promote the development of the entire ecosystem.

You propose to adjust the price to 160. Is there any basis for this? If not, I would like to reiterate the calculation method mentioned in my previous comment, I suggest adjusting the price to 140sun.

Here is the TRX net increase calculation based on different unit prices.

• 130SUN : 28792176-(37285168266 + 359010894) 130 / 1000000 = 173648.7092
• 140SUN : 28792176-(37285168266 + 359010894) 140/ 1000000 = -202793.0824
• 200SUN : 28792176-(37285168266 + 359010894) 200 / 1000000 = -2461443

Let us see which price will make TRX net increase to 0. 28792176-(37285168266 + 359010894) X/ 1000000 = 0 here we can easily get the value of X is 134.6128967.

This means any unit price which is greater than 134.6128967 will make TRX net increase a negative number.

So I would suggest we adjust the value to 140 SUN.

The price increase from 40sun to 200sun is too big, I suggest to increase to 160 sun.

First of all, I think that a low fee is not a good thing for a public chain. Although many developers oppose the price increase, they always hope the fees are cheap enough because they need lower operating costs. However, from the perspective of the development of the public chain itself, low fees will attract many capital projects, which will cause great damage to the reputation of TRON. We have seen many such situations in the past.

However, whether the price increase will cause a devastating blow to the existing ecology is also unpredictable. so, for more stable development, it is should not to increase it so much. For example, the unit price of resources first increases to 160 sun, and then observes Whether the ecology develops in a good direction, and then decide how to increase or decrease.

what do you think?

[ghost]

Extremely opposed. Raising transaction costs is sabotage. If you want the TRX price to rise, I have a much better offer: SRs reward system "Caishen" And the fight against pyramids and fraudulent smart contracts should be at the user level. Most use them out of ignorance or delusion. The load arises from the use of fraudulent smart contracts by users. Those. if the network warns the user, then he will not launch this smart contract.

[Lucienest]

Extremely opposed. Raising transaction costs is sabotage. If you want the TRX price to rise, I have a much better offer: SRs reward system "Caishen" And the fight against pyramids and fraudulent smart contracts should be at the user level. Most use them out of ignorance or delusion. The load arises from the use of fraudulent smart contracts by users. Those. if the network warns the user, then he will not launch this smart contract.

If TRON starts dictating the developments like what smart contracts we can or can't deploy or whether if it's pointless, fraudulent, or scam, It won't be a decentralized chain anymore. I don't see this kind of proposals on Ethereum or other similar chains, It should be up to the user to make his own research/decision.

[ghost]

If TRON starts dictating the developments like what smart contracts we can or can't deploy or whether if it's pointless, fraudulent, or scam, It won't be a decentralized chain anymore. I don't see this kind of proposals on Ethereum or other similar chains, It should be up to the user to make his own research/decision.

Tron has nothing to do with it. I'm talking specifically about users. Take JustSwap, for example, where any user can create their own list. It remains to do the next step - to save and transfer the lists. We can do the same with applications. Security system "Mehen"

[call-me-nobody]

Today, Seeing other people discussing SUNNETWORK in the group, I suddenly realized that if the main network price increases, SUNNETWORK can be another best choice. SUNNETWORK is originally a side chain designed for DAPP. The cost of developing and operating DAPP on SUNNETWORK is far Much lower than the main chain.

It does have many advantages :

1. it is full compatible with TRON main-chain
2. Highly customizable
3. Low cost. freezing 1 TRX can obtain 100X resources compare to mainnet.

Learn more from this link if you want to see the details: https://tron.network/sunnetwork/#/

[bondibox]

The real danger of this TIP is when it is combined with TIP 207, Proposals to improve network resources model.

At today's prevailing rate, energy can be sold on the open market at a cost of 15 sun per energy unit, per day. At the rate that energy is currently obtained by freezing, 10k frozen TRX will receive 300k in energy per day, which can be sold for 4.5 TRX. An SR who pays out 100% of earnings to voters is only paying out about 2 TRX per day, so even at today's prevailing rate, freezing for energy is worth more than twice the voter rewards.

If TIP 207 becomes a proposal and passes, freezing for energy will overtake voting as the optimal method of generating revenue. Increasing the cost of energy by 5x will create a further disparity, making freezing for energy ten times more profitable than voting. Even if TIP 196 is enacted and burn fees are given to SR's to be passed along to voters, choosing energy over voting will still be 5x more profitable.

But if the network fees are left where they are, and TIP 196 passes, then freezing for energy and voting will generate more or less equal revenue streams.

The danger which comes with the combination of TIP 207 and TIP 232 is that the average TRON holder will no longer be voting, and will opt to make 5-10 times more by freezing for energy. This will rob the community run SR's of votes and ultimately their position in the top 27 elected SR's. Representatives who vote for themselves likely will not switch to the more profitable freeze for energy since it is too cumbersome to be sold at the scale that they hold TRX.

[otakuinny]

The real danger of this TIP is when it is combined with TIP 207, Proposals to improve network resources model.

At today's prevailing rate, energy can be sold on the open market at a cost of 15 sun per energy unit, per day. At the rate that energy is currently obtained by freezing, 10k frozen TRX will receive 300k in energy per day, which can be sold for 4.5 TRX. An SR who pays out 100% of earnings to voters is only paying out about 2 TRX per day, so even at today's prevailing rate, freezing for energy is worth more than twice the voter rewards.

If TIP 207 becomes a proposal and passes, freezing for energy will overtake voting as the optimal method of generating revenue. Increasing the cost of energy by 5x will create a further disparity, making freezing for energy ten times more profitable than voting. Even if TIP 196 is enacted and burn fees are given to SR's to be passed along to voters, choosing energy over voting will still be 5x more profitable.

But if the network fees are left where they are, and TIP 196 passes, then freezing for energy and voting will generate more or less equal revenue streams.

The danger which comes with the combination of TIP 207 and TIP 232 is that the average TRON holder will no longer be voting, and will opt to make 5-10 times more by freezing for energy. This will rob the community run SR's of votes and ultimately their position in the top 27 elected SR's. Representatives who vote for themselves likely will not switch to the more profitable freeze for energy since it is too cumbersome to be sold at the scale that they hold TRX.

Exactly. The 5X fee increase is bad enough, but combining it with TIP 207 would put the final nail in TRON' coffin.

[kunlunxuejue11]

The real danger of this TIP is when it is combined with TIP 207, Proposals to improve network resources model.

At today's prevailing rate, energy can be sold on the open market at a cost of 15 sun per energy unit, per day. At the rate that energy is currently obtained by freezing, 10k frozen TRX will receive 300k in energy per day, which can be sold for 4.5 TRX. An SR who pays out 100% of earnings to voters is only paying out about 2 TRX per day, so even at today's prevailing rate, freezing for energy is worth more than twice the voter rewards.

If TIP 207 becomes a proposal and passes, freezing for energy will overtake voting as the optimal method of generating revenue. Increasing the cost of energy by 5x will create a further disparity, making freezing for energy ten times more profitable than voting. Even if TIP 196 is enacted and burn fees are given to SR's to be passed along to voters, choosing energy over voting will still be 5x more profitable.

But if the network fees are left where they are, and TIP 196 passes, then freezing for energy and voting will generate more or less equal revenue streams.

The danger which comes with the combination of TIP 207 and TIP 232 is that the average TRON holder will no longer be voting, and will opt to make 5-10 times more by freezing for energy. This will rob the community run SR's of votes and ultimately their position in the top 27 elected SR's. Representatives who vote for themselves likely will not switch to the more profitable freeze for energy since it is too cumbersome to be sold at the scale that they hold TRX.

@bondibox “10k frozen TRX will receive 300k in energy per day, which can be sold for 4.5 TRX”， 4.5trx， why？