[ZSA] Fees for ZSA issuance. #667
Conversation
zip-0317.rst
Outdated
| :math:`issuance\_fee` :math:`1000000` zatoshis per issuance action (as defined below) | ||
| :math:`finalize\_fee` :math:`1000000` zatoshis per issuance action (as defined below) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this set a minimum (economic) value for each NFT, or the sum of any other asset?
Can we add a note explaining what that minimum is in ZEC?
Co-authored-by: teor <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: teor <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What we'll want for this change is not just the delta to ZIP 0317, but a separate ZIP draft (which will likely be assigned a ZIP number in the 2xxx range) that describes the rationale for the fee changes and a delta to ZIP 0317, which will then be represented here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The fee changes are a consequence of the new transaction format, and so the updates to ZIP 317 should be described in ZIP 230 (or an update ZIP that 230 can reference, but since they're small changes it's probably easier to do it in 230). They can't be applied directly to ZIP 317 for us to be able to merge them now.
|
@vivek-arte this will need attention before the NU7 zip selection deadline (2024-11-05). See also #854 (comment) |
| Daniel Benarroch | ||
| Jonathan Rouach | ||
| Pablo Kogan | ||
| Vivek Arte |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If one of yous wants to add yourself as an Owner, that would be fine from my point of view. (Speaking as an existing Owner.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suppose this is not relevant for now, since we aren't editing ZIP 317
zips/zip-0317.rst
Outdated
| Jonathan Rouach | ||
| Pablo Kogan | ||
| Vivek Arte | ||
| Status: Draft |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As a modification to ZIP 317, this would need to look like:
Status: [Revision 0] Active, [Revision 1] Proposedbut only once it actually gets to Proposed status. (See ZIP 214 for an example using this convention for NU6 changes.) One of the reasons to put it in a 2xxx ZIP instead is that then it can be merged as Draft.
ZIP Editors: I will file some suggested wording for ZIP 0 codifying this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I updated it like so based on how it was in ZIP 316 (though now I see that has been updated to Proposed)
Status: Revision 0: Active, Revision 1: Draft
- This PR rewrites ZIP 317 in order to specify which are the revisions made for the ZSA Protocol. - It also rewrites the issuance_fee as a multiple of the marginal_fee for easier analysis. - The finalization fee is also removed, based on our discussions. --------- Co-authored-by: Daira-Emma Hopwood <[email protected]>
| @@ -40,6 +52,8 @@ The goal of this ZIP is to change the conventional fees for transactions | |||
| by making them dependent on the number of inputs and outputs in a transaction, | |||
| and to get buy-in for this change from wallet developers, miners and Zcash users. | |||
|
|
|||
| Revision 1 of this ZIP additionally defines the fee mechanism associated with the Orchard Zcash Shielded Assets (OrchardZSA) protocol as described in ZIP 226 [#zip-0226]_ and ZIP 227 [#zip-0227]_. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It doesn't strictly need to be a new Revision of ZIP 317 because it does not affect v5 transactions, and applying different rules for v6 transactions is non-disruptive to the existing specification because v6 transactions don't currently exist.
|
The ZSA Fees updates have been moved to ZIP 230, and will reflect in #854 -- so I think this PR can be closed for now? |
This is done in response to zcash#667 (comment)
This PR includes the Fees ZIP modifications for the ZSA Protocol, and is a companion to PR#676.
The rendered version of the ZIP can be viewed here
See #930