Proposal: Increase the total Energy limit

[Jackmrshen]

Simple Summary

The current total Energy limit on TRON is 90,000,000,000 energy, it should be increased to adapt the blooming development of dApps.

Motivation

The TRON network is always committed to providing high quality transaction services with low fees and fast speeds. Recently, with the rapid development of dApps in the TRON ecosystem, demand for energy has increased dramatically, and more TRX needs to be staked to obtain the same amount of energy as before. As a result, the transactions cost of calling smart contracts is potentially increased for TRX stakers.

In order to maintain the interests of TRX stakers and keep the low transaction fees to further stimulate the growth of dApps markets, it is proposed to increase the total energy limit on TRON network.

Proposal

I propose to increase the total energy supply step by step, and we could start with adjusting the total energy limit to 120,000,000,000.

And this is just the beginning, I suggest to adjust the parameter gradually to finally meet the requirement of energy.

As second step of adjusting, I propose to increase the total energy supply from 120,000,000 to 150,000,000.

Background

The daily total number of smart contract calls and total energy consumption increase rapidly recently, as shown in the diagrams below.

The unit cost of energy by staking TRX has increased to approximately 2.5 times, as shown in the diagram below.

[dwjorgeb]

Agreed. The new energy limit should be increased significantly, I'd say at least 2x.

[DmytroShalaiev]

Significant, let's increase the total Energy limit

[spacesudo]

Agreed with the increase

[BelarusOK]

Disagree

[WindsofChange92]

I disagree with this proposal because it is a temporary band-aid and not a fix.

This doubles the amount of FREE transaction capability TRON gives out daily.

TRX burns because users are using the blockchain without staking or they don't have enough energy. This will decrease TRX burn as it forces all users to stake for energy or to not use the TRON blockchain at all due to rising TRX price movement.

If users are not staking they are burning $13-30 per smart contract transaction and they will leave. This also forces businesses to have to subsidize user transactions or they won't get adoption. Further forcing users into centralized applications like CEXs and subsidized platforms.

A better solution would be to increase energy per TRX burn. This would reduce blockchain fees across the board and increase user adoption and retention. This is also reverting the previous changes SRs have made to increase fees in the past.

This in turn snowballs adoption as TRON becomes more and more cheap for all users and allows TRX to rise in price rapidly while keeping burn in check.

10,000 users paying $0.50 or 1000 users paying $2.00?

With this proposal you get 10,000 users paying $0.00 but staking TRX.

[ZhangYiQiu]

Agree, I think it should be increased to 200-300 billion.

[731MY]

Agreed. The new energy limit should be increased significantly, I'd say at least 2x.

I agree, it should be at least 3x increase, or the cost of executing a smart contracts should be reduced by 3x

[ZhangYiQiu]

Currently making the lowest energy consuming USDT transfer requires consuming more than $2. Compared to the past, TRON's fees are no longer competitive and users may turn to cheaper blockchains such as BSC, Polygon, Toncoin

[CommunitySR]

Great suggestion at least a x2 or x3 from the current should help the energy shortage which has been created right now . While many energy is getting delegated to the new platform other apps on tron suffer and projects renting energy also suffer by a much higher operational cost .

[Moneyversac]

I agree and it should be made at least x2 higher.

On the otherhand I wonder if it would be possible to use unused energy. Like taking aways from people who never use their energy or only use a low amount of it such as exchanges for example. Like if they only use 20% for a certain time period it will be cut and put into the pool. If they go over certain amount again they get energy back and so on.

I think the entire usage of the energy pool needs to be changed to be more efficient in order to use most of the energy around instead of dead energy sitting in wallets which don't use it.

[Ademillery]

Cool, previously staking 1 TRX could get about 12 energy, but now, it's only about 4.5 energy, the total energy limit should definitely be modified.

[dwjorgeb]

A better solution would be to increase energy per TRX burn. This would reduce blockchain fees across the board and increase user adoption and retention. This is also reverting the previous changes SRs have made to increase fees in the past.

IMO they're not mutually exclusive. I also agree with increasing the energy per TRX burn.

Heck, while we're at it, we could even disable the questionable model of the "dynamic energy".

[xiaosteel]

解决方案应该是 降低TRX抵扣能量消耗的sun单位，让没有能量的人 使用时候抵扣的TRX数量降低，能量保持不变，从而降低链上的交互成本，这样做可以让能量保持紧缺状态，让能量消耗的成本略低于TRX消耗成本即可，并不是一味的提高能量的上限，这样可以避免万一交互降低的时候 TRX不会陷入通胀状态

[otakuinny]

Increasing the energy limit is a temporary fix. The real problem is trondao staking billions of trx whenever they want with no care or regard for everyday tron users. A real fix would be to ban trondao or any centralized exchange from staking trx. Although I realize it may not be technically feasible.

In any case, if the current energy limit of 90 billion is to be increased, it should atleast be x3. Because trondao is going to stake even more trx to power sunpump in the coming days and if the increase is only x2, we'll have this problem again in a few days. A 3x increase would be reasonable and safe, atleast for the time being.

[JefianDenis]

Increasing the energy limit is a temporary fix. The real problem is trondao staking billions of trx whenever they want with no care or regard for everyday tron users. A real fix would be to ban trondao or any centralized exchange from staking trx. Although I realize it may not be technically feasible.

I absolutely agree. The energy limit should not be raised by 2 times.

If Sun wants to make a discount on energy for users of his contract, then a universal mechanism should be provided. And these mechanisms are already implemented in the Tron. 1.For example, give the contract owner the opportunity to burn the trx to fulfill the contract. 2.For example, when using more than 90% of the energy from staking in the next round, increase the total amount of energy by 5% (approximately as the increase in energy is done when burning by the contract). And when using less than 50% - decreases by 5%. Considering that with constant use of staked energy, the use of staked energy can reach 200%, this is a realistic threshold. In this case, the problem would not even arise - it would simply be necessary to buy energy for the contract and its amount would increase in the next round. And in 3 days it would increase by 60%. That is, we would have been patient for a couple of days - and the problem would not have arisen. Moreover, this mechanism will not require additional edits in case of another contract, for example, a casino or a hamster. If we now double the energy, then we will have to make changes to the system every time we add a popular contract. And what if the meme era ends tomorrow and Sun unstakes the coins? Will we reduce the amount of energy?

Let's see when exactly the problems started? Monday 19 was more or less normal. Utilization - 100%. Tuesday - the problems started. I propose increasing the energy limit with utilization over 100% by 10% per week. And decreasing with utilization less than 50% per week. Also by 10%. UPD. week counter is better, perhaps 2 weeks, like in bitcoin. Don't need to jump anytime.

Would 10% help us? Yes, it would give us an extra 18 billion energy by Wednesday. With utilization of 125%, which was observed on Wednesday, it would make it possible to use the same amount of energy in the remaining contracts as last week. And the amount of energy would continue to grow.

[JamesEisenberg]

The core issue stems from the fact that Justin Sun and the TRON DAO are reportedly using more than half of the network's total energy to favor a single platform, SunPump. This concentration of energy usage by a single entity creates a significant imbalance, driving up the cost of energy for everyone else on the network.

Given this scenario, the proposal to increase the total energy limit might seem like a logical solution on the surface, but it doesn't address the root cause of the problem. The real issue is the disproportionate allocation of energy resources, and simply increasing the energy limit would only be a temporary fix. Without addressing the underlying imbalance caused by the heavy usage of energy by TRON's own entities, the broader network participants will continue to face inflated costs, making the proposal less effective in the long term.

To address the issue more effectively, a multi-faceted approach could be considered:

Implement Energy Usage Limits for Single Entities: Introduce a cap on the percentage of the total network energy that any single entity or platform can use. This would prevent any one platform, like SunPump, from consuming an overwhelming share of the network's resources, ensuring a more equitable distribution of energy across all users.

[otakuinny]

The core issue stems from the fact that Justin Sun and the TRON DAO are reportedly using more than half of the network's total energy to favor a single platform, SunPump. This concentration of energy usage by a single entity creates a significant imbalance, driving up the cost of energy for everyone else on the network.

Given this scenario, the proposal to increase the total energy limit might seem like a logical solution on the surface, but it doesn't address the root cause of the problem. The real issue is the disproportionate allocation of energy resources, and simply increasing the energy limit would only be a temporary fix. Without addressing the underlying imbalance caused by the heavy usage of energy by TRON's own entities, the broader network participants will continue to face inflated costs, making the proposal less effective in the long term.

To address the issue more effectively, a multi-faceted approach could be considered:

Implement Energy Usage Limits for Single Entities: Introduce a cap on the percentage of the total network energy that any single entity or platform can use. This would prevent any one platform, like SunPump, from consuming an overwhelming share of the network's resources, ensuring a more equitable distribution of energy across all users.

This proposal is vague and not technically feasible. If there are limits imposed on the maximum amount of energy a single account or a contract can have, it can easily be circumvented with multiple contracts.

[otakuinny]

This Justin guy has been tweeting non-stop and throwing around all kinds of number projections while the price of trx is retracing back to where it was a couple of days ago. This exact same nonsense has played out in tron so many times before that I lost count. This is what happens when you try to create fake demand for an inferior product instead of letting it grow naturally.

Until a few hours ago, despite the big reduction in available energy, there was at least some consolation cos the trx price was going up. Now, the price is dropping, and there's no energy for the community. TronDao really knows how to f#$k things up.

[otakuinny]

I don't understand what he means by TRON revenue grew by some percentage in his tweets. What the hell is "revenue" in the context of a supposed decentralized crypto currency? Can someone explain.

[Jamestepfoward]

We should consider the fact that this is the beginning of the sunpump and we do not know how long will this activity will last. I think instead of increasing the limit to 2x or 3x directly, it should be adjusted more smoothly and even we come up with a method to adapt the energy supply with the community demand dynamically would be a better solution.

[WalterBrooks]

It has been a while! The TRX price is going up fast recently and everyone in the community is excited again! With no doubt the large amount of burning TRX and staking TRX stimulate the price to rise. Compared the cheaper fee, I prefer to see the continuous increase of TRX price. So please do not increase the energy supply sharply, could we take small steps to increase the limit so that it could balance between the TRX price increase with solving the energy requirement.

[rrouk]

It's probably necessary to implement dynamic metrics for energy and bandwidth. Simply doubling the entire energy volume is like putting a band-aid on a broken leg. It's a temporary solution.

Heh. I would suggest creating a separate resource called "Sun-Energy," and let Mr. Sun stake his TRX specifically into this resource, which he can then allocate to his platforms. At the moment, Mr. Sun has broken the system that had been running smoothly for several years.

I believe the ideal solution would be to increase the total energy volume proportionally to the amount of TRX staked, taking into account the resource consumption over the past week.

If a lot of energy was consumed last week, the total volume would increase. If less was consumed, the total volume would decrease. If Mr. Sun stakes another billion TRX, the weekly consumption metric would be maximized, and the total volume would increase.

It’s also possible to account for addresses that haven't used any energy for a week and exclude them from the statistics.

[Danbowz92]

A much needed and overdue debate. For me personally i have already started the process of unstaking to leave the chain as it's just gotten too expensive and resource heavy. Those who want the status quo claiming price will increase are simply kidding themselves.

Prices will decrease as more and more users will feel pushed out and end up selling driving prices down. Yes you may get some who can afford to stake more then they lose in energy but i think that's few and far between.

I don't think one size fit's all approach will work but think a combination will and just remember without Tron staker's there would be more Tron on the market so don't villainize those that help the network.

When i first got into Tron $250 staked was more then enough to do everything i needed. Today that wouldn't even touch the surface. This higher barrier to entry prevent's smaller size wallet's from coming on chain and going elsewhere. You may think this is significant but just think if that pushed out 100,000 users or more what effect that would have. The point i am making is the Tron chain when i first joined and Tron chain today is vastly different and had it not been for the lower entry point i wouldn't have joined or built up my balance over the last few year's.

The Tron chain need's to adapt and like i said i don't think one size fit's all approach will work. Personally i think below we need to explore:-

1. The energy Limit is there really a need for a constant fixed supply? Why not look into a dynamic supply based off the last 2 day's of energy consumption. If the energy consumption is higher on day 2 then day 1 then increase the energy limit by the difference. If the energy consumption is lower on day 2 then day 1 then lower the energy limit by the difference.

This change would keep stakers happy as they wouldn't be constantly losing energy unit's and thus wouldn't be priced out.

2. Change how the energy is awarded by having more then 1 pool. By having more then one approach to how energy is awarded creates more opportunities. I would suggest having 2 pool's 1 pool for the current energy and unstaking requirements and another pool that allow's you to earn a increase in energy the longer your prepared to lock your Tron up examples include 3 month's 6 month's 1 year 2 years. Should you require access before the end of your lock up a Tron fee should be deducted and burnt.

This change would reward those who stay longer in Tron. They would be locking up Tron which would otherwise be on the market for a fixed amount of time for a increase in higher energy unit's. This would help those who have smaller wallets to start stacking up on Tron. A Tron fee for early access gives users emergency access for a fee.

3. Implement a new function called sleep which can be switched on and off manually or set up automatically. Once activated this function you would need to set a Tron amount from your staked Tron balance and a time limit. The energy unit's you obtained though staking would be pooled together and 40% of all energy units obtained would be rented out and 75% of Tron obtained would be burnt and the remaining 25% of Tron would be used to give a discount on burn fees. The remaining 60% of energy obtained would be used to cover when users turn off the mode.

This added function would give a discount on burn fees for users and 75% of all Tron obtained would be burnt.

[PROrector]

The problem isn't the energy limit or the running of a meme platform no one cares about. The problem is centralization and concentration of the lion's share of the steak in the hands of a handful of rulers. We can all clearly see how approval knowingly disadvantageous to the average user increases in fees, longer lockout periods, and the absorption of the total resource limit by a single user are accepted. Only an insider is able to maneuver in these conditions - the same group of managers in collusion, who know in advance what to do and when to do it. This is not decentralization, it is no different from totalitarianism and dictatorship.

[bettcherkenyatta]

Recently, sunpump on the TRON network has been very popular, with the entire community actively participating. This has led to a sharp increase in energy demand across the network. Previously, staking 1 TRX could get around 11 energy, but now it can only get 4-5 energy. Therefore, this proposal can to some extent alleviate the current issue.

[dwjorgeb]

We can all clearly see how approval knowingly disadvantageous to the average user increases in fees, longer lockout periods, and the absorption of the total resource limit by a single user are accepted

The questionable "dynamic energy" model (AKA "USDT tax"), as well as the increase of the burning cost of energy from 280 sun to 420 sun come to mind.

These changes raised the blockchain fees artificially just to pump the whales, while actively making everyone else's life miserable with blockchain fees higher than Ethereum lol

[dwjorgeb]

with the entire community actively participating

really? The entire community? I, for one, did not participate

[bettcherkenyatta]

We can all clearly see how approval knowingly disadvantageous to the average user increases in fees, longer lockout periods, and the absorption of the total resource limit by a single user are accepted

The questionable "dynamic energy" model, as well as the increase of the burning cost of energy from 280 sun to 420 sun come to mind.

These changes raised the blockchain fees artificially just to pump the whales, while actively making everyone else's life miserable with blockchain fees higher than Ethereum lol

I don't agree with your opinion. Although the Gas fees on the ETH chain are currently low, I still remember vividly paying over $100 in gas fees during the DeFi craze on ETH. The fees on TRON are almost negligible, and moreover, the TRON network allows for free transfers through staking. Even though the popularity of sunpump has led to increased energy costs, isn't this proposal already trying to address this issue as much as possible?

[rrouk]

I hope Mr. Sun understands that the price of TRON doesn't depend solely on him and his friends. The price is influenced by the number of people who hold this asset, stake it, and believe in TRON.

By playing a one-sided game, Mr. Sun is pushing away regular users and causing them to sell off. For the record, I have also decided to unstake. I don't like the current situation, and seeing how Mr. Sun has made decisions over the past week, it seems to me that there is no decentralization in TRON. Let Mr. Sun play in his sandbox with his SBDС project by himself.

And yes, they rolled out a vote: Propose to modify the total Energy limit to 120,000,000,000 ENERGY.

I don't think this will help fix the situation.

[dwjorgeb]

The fees on TRON are almost negligible

No, they were almost negligible, before the changes to artificially pump them. Because unlike ETH, where the fees were high because the blocks were full, the fees on TRON were raised by decree, by changing the network parameters and adding the USDT tax "dynamic energy model"

Nowadays you're paying almost $5 in fees for a single USDT transfer, which is completely unbearable for the average user using the most popular token in the network. Contrast that with ~$1 of fees on ETH or ~$0.01 on Polygon, Optimism, and Arbitrum

moreover, the TRON network allows for free transfers through staking

Well, not anymore, right? That's why we're having this discussion

isn't this proposal already trying to address this issue as much as possible?

Like many others have said, this would help, but it's a bandaid, the root of the issue remains, we're just addressing the symptoms

[PROrector]

Although the Gas fees on the ETH chain are currently low, I still remember vividly paying over $100 in gas fees during the DeFi

However, we can see that Buterin and team are looking to reduce gas consumption in every way possible, while TRON is doing the opposite by increasing network fees...

[rrouk]

for free transfers through staking

I'll leave this here. Think about it: Who will stake for a free transaction? Ordinary users are being pushed out of the market. Those who staked just enough for one transaction a day.

💥 Resources for staking TRX: ⚡️ 32K ENERGY = 7,679.86 TRX ⚡️ 65K ENERGY = 15,599.71 TRX ⚡️ 100K ENERGY = 23,999.55 TRX ⚡️ 1M ENERGY = 239,995.51 TRX

[tiburcionickleson]

I hope the total energy can be increased by 1-2 times, which would basically restore it to the previous state. Based on the experience of pumps on the SOL network, the heat of sunpump may decrease appropriately later on, and the energy demand will decrease.

[otakuinny]

The proposal https://tronscan.org/#/proposal/92 which is sure to pass, raises the total energy available from 90 billion to 120 billion. This will have 0 effect on improving the energy issue. Right now, staking 1 TRX gives 4.16 energy. There is currently a total of 21.6 billion trx staked in all of TRON network. When the total energy is raised to 120 billion, 1 TRX will give 5.55 energy. This is assuming no more TRX will be staked, but more TRX will definitely be staked. So, even after raising the total energy to 120 billion, staking 1 trx will still only give about 5.55 energy or likely even less.

I refuse to believe trondao is this stupid. They may be thinking when they unstake their TRX from sunpump contract the situation will go back to where it was, but there is no timeline for unstaking the trx. The way Justin Sun is hyping it up, it doesn't look like they are going to do that anytime soon.

This is manipulation at a scale never heard of. The SEC is already investigating Justin. This is more evidence of market manipulation. Hell, even CZ who was 100 times bigger than Justin went to prison. Justin has no chance whatsoever.

[otakuinny]

Energy limit has to be raised to at least 450 billion to have any chance of making usdt transactions affordable again. It can be lowered back to 90 billion or whatever when trondao unstakes their illegal trx reserves.

[Ironman-Innovator]

@otakuinny After all these years, TRON is still Justin's TRON, and it's still his place.

As you said, the number of TRX staked as energy increased from 8 billion on August 13th (when SunPump went live) to 21 billion on August 22nd, nearly tripling. But they still only increased the energy limit by 30%.

TU3rMHyWHzeEJBReWLzHko728hbz6MtfNg, the deployer of the SunPump contract, is currently holding close to 48.3 billion energy, plus 11.7 billion held by sTRX. Justin team is holding 60 billion energy, compared to the current energy limit of 90 billion. Other TRON ecosystem participants, such as exchanges/energy renting/general users, hold a total of 30 billion energy.

As the energy limit rises, Justin may choose to unstake a portion of the TRX, so according to the goal of maintaining its current 60 billion energy holdings unchanged, then other TRON ecosystem participants, may subsequently obtain an additional 30 billion energy, so that the total energy available to them will come to 60 billion.

If Justin chooses to maintain the status quo, well, you get the picture.

[Ironman-Innovator]

@otakuinny As for the 90 billion energy limit, I'm guessing in that his initial value setting was inspired by TRX's total supply. This means that there is probably no technical support for this parameter setting.

Looking at the data, the daily energy consumption on TRON came to 200 billion on August 20th, which is nearly double compared to usual. But the network did not show any signs of busyness or volatility. This indicates that its ability to handle energy far exceeds the existing 90 billion energy limit. As for the energy limit setting and adjustment, it is more of an economic consideration, as well as the protocol revenue.

If their developers still say that it's to maintain network stability or some such nonsense, laugh it off and don't bother arguing with them.

[Ironman-Innovator]

@otakuinny As for the SunPump project, we can see that Justin's team has been constantly changing the value of one of the parameters of its entry contract.

This shows the lack of preparation of its team, before unexpected events. We even observed that the parameter value was set to 100% at the beginning of its launch. This means that there is no cost to the attackers.

[Ironman-Innovator]

@Danbowz92 It's hard to disagree with you.

TRON has been a kidnapping of users since last year, with the dynamic energy modeling initiated last year to Justin's reckless and insane incremental stakes this year when SunPump went live.

At the end of the day the user base of USDT on TRON is very large, and what Justin's team has been doing is capitalizing on that very large user base to kidnap users and extract huge profits from them (protocol revenue, i.e. TRX burn).

As for your comment about the dynamic energy limit, I noticed that it seems that in TRON's network parameters, #21 (Propose to allow adaptive adjustment for total Energy), #29 (Propose to modify the adaptive Energy limit), #33 (Propose to modify the adaptive Energy limit target), which seems to be a pre-existing model for dynamically adjusting the energy limit. Why it is still turned on is unknown.

The TRON team has never been very receptive to any community suggestions, whether it be TIPs or java-tron specific feature improvements, it's hard to really get involved. Justin's ideas are implemented immediately, which proves that TRON is still Justin's TRON.

[laneadhelmar]

Increasing the total energy is the right move. From Tronscan, we can see that energy consumption yesterday has started to decline, dropping by about 30%. However, compared to usual, it has still increased significantly. Therefore, there is still a need to increase the total energy to reduce the cost of acquiring energy. At the same time, I noticed that ETH has started to have a 0.73% inflation due to inactivity on the chain, but the TRON network still maintains its deflationary state.

[leonchuk]

EnergyLimit must be dynamic and depend on the following parameters:

• PriceTrx
• TrxNetIncrease (TrxGenerated / TrxBurned)

Increasing PriceTrx should increase EnergyLimit. When increasing TrxNetIncrease, on the contrary, should decrease EnergyLimit. The change should be smooth and depend on previous periods.

[dwjorgeb]

At the end of the day the user base of USDT on TRON is very large, and what Justin's team has been doing is capitalizing on that very large user base to kidnap users and extract huge profits from them (protocol revenue, i.e. TRX burn).

I've been saying this since the USDT tax (aka dynamic energy model) was proposed. It was just masquerading as to prevent low value tx spam, but it was just a money grab for the whales, by artificially pumping the transaction fees on the biggest use case of the network. If we're serious about solving the transaction fees in Tron, the dynamic energy model should be scrapped too. The network should not be picking winners or losers, it should work the same way for all smart contracts

[dwjorgeb]

The proposal https://tronscan.org/#/proposal/92 which is sure to pass, raises the total energy available from 90 billion to 120 billion. This will have 0 effect on improving the energy issue. Right now, staking 1 TRX gives 4.16 energy. There is currently a total of 21.6 billion trx staked in all of TRON network. When the total energy is raised to 120 billion, 1 TRX will give 5.55 energy. This is assuming no more TRX will be staked, but more TRX will definitely be staked. So, even after raising the total energy to 120 billion, staking 1 trx will still only give about 5.55 energy or likely even less.

This proposal is basically a slap in the face of everyone. Raising the energy by a measly 30b is a joke.

Who is proposing this? Where did they get the 120b number from? Where was it discussed?

[Moneyversac]

I agree, I suggested that a long time ago. But that of course only solves the Problem of expensive/cheap energy but not the issue of too little energy if big whales like Justin or Exchanges freeze TRX for energy.

leonchuk @.***> schrieb am Fr., 23. Aug. 2024, 09:41:

EnergyLimit must be dynamic and depend on the following parameters:

• PriceTrx
• TrxNetIncrease (TrxGenerated / TrxBurned)

Increasing PriceTrx should increase EnergyLimit. When increasing TrxNetIncrease, on the contrary, should decrease EnergyLimit. The change should be smooth and depend on previous periods.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/tronprotocol/tips/issues/667#issuecomment-2306489126, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A4OGUV745HLHBYKUCIBNSV3ZS3RULAVCNFSM6AAAAABM3ZEYEGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMBWGQ4DSMJSGY . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[rrouk]

Who is proposing this? Where did they get the 120b number from? Where was it discussed?

This was decided by Mr. Justin Sun. After all, Tron is his playground, and he does as he pleases.

Given the situation in which Mr. Sun has placed us, it's clear that Tron lacks any real decentralization. All the super representatives are merely Mr. Sun's sycophants.

Whatever Mr. Sun says, they do. He told them to throw everyone a bone by increasing the energy to 120 billion, and the super representatives did it without any discussion.

What will people on the outside think of this?

[rrouk]

💥 Resources for staking TRX: ⚡️ 32K ENERGY = 7,679.86 TRX ⚡️ 65K ENERGY = 15,599.71 TRX ⚡️ 100K ENERGY = 23,999.55 TRX ⚡️ 1M ENERGY = 239,995.51 TRX

⚡️ 32К ENERGY = 7,691.50 TRX ⚡️ 65К ENERGY = 15,623.36 TRX ⚡️ 100К ENERGY = 24,035.94 TRX ⚡️ 1M ENERGY = 240,359.36 TRX

[dwjorgeb]

Whatever Mr. Sun says, they do. He told them to throw everyone a bone by increasing the energy to 120 billion, and the super representatives did it without any discussion.

What will people on the outside think of this?

Well, we're advising our clients to move away from TRON to any other chain. There are much better options in the market right now, even Ethereum is much cheaper.

We're also evaluating unstaking and unloading our TRON holdings.

[undershanon]

From the data of various chains, regardless of active addresses, transaction volume, and protocol revenue, the TRON network is significantly leading and excelling over other L2 networks, including ETH. Despite the current increase in transaction fees due to the popularity of sunpump, proposals to increase total energy and reduce fees are already being attempted to address this issue, which is excellent! While the fees on other L2 networks are very low, the number of active users is minimal. Therefore, I believe that lower fees are not necessarily better. It is essential to consider the overall perspective, including the ecosystem, user choices, and other aspects!

[sutt2m]

I agree.

[Danbowz92]

From the data of various chains, regardless of active addresses, transaction volume, and protocol revenue, the TRON network is significantly leading and excelling over other L2 networks, including ETH. Despite the current increase in transaction fees due to the popularity of sunpump, proposals to increase total energy and reduce fees are already being attempted to address this issue, which is excellent! While the fees on other L2 networks are very low, the number of active users is minimal. Therefore, I believe that lower fees are not necessarily better. It is essential to consider the overall perspective, including the ecosystem, user choices, and other aspects!

From the data of various chains, regardless of active addresses, transaction volume, and protocol revenue, the TRON network is significantly leading and excelling over other L2 networks, including ETH. Despite the current increase in transaction fees due to the popularity of sunpump, proposals to increase total energy and reduce fees are already being attempted to address this issue, which is excellent! While the fees on other L2 networks are very low, the number of active users is minimal. Therefore, I believe that lower fees are not necessarily better. It is essential to consider the overall perspective, including the ecosystem, user choices, and other aspects!

Your forgetting to add in how many users are leaving the Tron chain due to high fees and them being priced out and what impact that will have . I been on Tron since April 2020 slowly accumulating and in general being in the tron ecosystem i am currently unstaking and going to sell. Higher fees will create selling pressure as users give up on Tron and move away which as a collective will have a impact on active users.