I have a few ideas I'd like to ask you guys if it's possible to put in code:
Tax fees to change after x time (example 10% for first 5 months then 3%)
Redistribution to be proportional to holder's rank: 1st holder to get 100% or normal distribution while last ranked holder to get 50% (can be 200% with 100%)

Keeping 10% of coins in an extra stash to be rewarded to loyal investors over time, example starting to distribute to holders after they complete 5 months being in, with no sell transactions. Possible fix with letting 1% transaction fees fund that stash instead of just leaving it.

Tax fees to vary based on amount of tokens being sold, example you have 100 token you pay 10% to sell all, 5% to sell half

I know all sound crazy if put in one code, but I wonder if they are doable, can it be done with code?

If you like any idea and implement one, hit me up so I can invest xD

If you think they are doable, I'd appreciate a suggestion about the basic structure it could work with

Double submitted notes at top with 1 month difference

It's a good idea and possible

It logs the errors there

Thanks buddy, I appreciate knowing its possible as a start

why are you still using it

could be you are using old docs

use this

https://docs.openzeppelin.com/contracts/3.x/api/gsn

last latest docs

thanks bro

👍

I think because of the upgrade

London upgrade

it could be the code before the SafeMath expression

I wanted to share an idea which I consider revolutionary, and I just want to see it happen coz I hate seeing the "burn" concept spreading and cant afford to do it myself.
Setting any low fee which creates a new random account wallet per each transaction and sends that x% there.
Example: sell 100 tokens with this new feature set on 5%, 5 tokens go to an unknown wallet with unknown keys to be inaccessible.

I believe burning is a terrible concept, with insignificant effect on price, if not completely useless. It guarantees one holder, which never sells and gets more tokens.

This new concept increases number of holders while decreasing rarity of coins and creating a healthy distribution

If anyone likes it or thinks it could work, feel free to do it to wipe out this terrible burning concept which only creates hype

Hype is not the intention but good points 👍

I believe it adds to liquidity as it adds holders, much more effective than in one address

I hate burn concept, and I thought this may be more useful. It's outside of circulation, not liquidity of the asset

Allocation is important in my opinion

I didnt think it through obviously, specially the holder's number effect of hype

True

I like that

I dont plan to use any liquidity pools on my projects as I consider them as useless as burning

But its not just that, liquidity is all coins that up to some degree are guaranteed not to sell in the market

Since they are locked in pools for x time or forever, thats the guarantee they wont sell

2 years liquidity lock is seen as decent until the coin gets enough tokens in circulation

If you consider both liquidity removed with burning, I need a new feature to align with these

The new burn concept of sending to random wallets sounded reasonable to improve distribution and decrease rarity, the coin financial analysis suggests that could be true

Its different if 100 wallets hold 1 token, from one wallet holding 100

Theoritically its the same, but not tested yet

Do you think it could be more useful than this burn concept we have until someone figures out a better way?

Couldn't hurt to try it I guess. I'd be willing to have a crack at it, not now though. Somebody's probably already started coding it, it'll do a Safemoon and we'll see fourteen billion forks of it by the weekend (75% scams ofc).

I dont think its bad for ecosystem, added fees will decrease coins even more

well how do you generate the address

Just put all fees of creating wallets and transaction on the seller's side, and ecosystem is untouched

Real burning in effect

No idea, 2 weeks of learning solidity only xD

Problem though, Solidity/Eth can't random. You'd have to figure out a way to send addresses from the frontend somehow, which could be manipulated...

If you think its bad for ecosystem coz of fees, you just invented real "burn"

Idk the technicals buddy, 2 weeks working with solidity but 5 years with markets (3 with cryptos)

Fees only burn your BNB/ETH aka actually money though, does nothing for your token's marketcap.

Any previous development/compsci experience?

Fees burn the shitcoin not bnb/eth

Nope, a true amateur xD

Oh. I was thinking of gas.:D

Ohh

Is there really nothing random?

I mean any kind of generating a new value by a certain factor

did you see the difference in checksum?

if you write "a" instead of "A" you can get an error

so not so easy as you think

You can solve it by giving private key reversal command for random addresses, or a better one if you know which keys are certainly never used

I think one way would be to clone and deploy an empty sc to send tokens to but Idk if it would be a good idea in terms of fees, probably no

But I think it would be a scammish idea btw

You can make a random(pseudo-) value, but... blockchains are beautifully transparent by design. That's what makes them the future of the entirety of society. That unfortunately also means you can't hide anything; the "randomness" can be gamed so that the "burn" tokens go to you instead.

Okay, it may suck, I guess I just hate this burn thing creating hype

Create a coin with 1B, burn half and put 0.5B for sale, instead of simply creating 0.5B to start with? It doesnt have an effect since tokens are not for sale or in circulation

anyway
Trustwallet moderators will check if the holders are reall so good luck ahah

They are real, just inaccessible

depends if you burn, decreasing total supplly

or decreasing only circulating one

I agree on the burns, especially the common practice of sending some supply to dead address just to trick investors, but altering the number of holders that way I think speaking in terms of scam I think this is worse

I like this, but not the first

Marketing

Free

If you notice they never do 50% and 50% usually

I mean the idea is interesting, no doubt about that, but you have to find a solution to a super huge security issue that will be exploited to death; then again, that'll probably lead to pretty much status quo, haha.

Anything to wipe out this burn concept personally is worth it id say

I wonder if you can put tokens inside an NFT...

Weird thought. 😂

See? This is what I wanted to start xD

Until someone figures a better way, it could be worth it

I found 5 free courses in piratebay, lovely so far

Can you put me through

Im the last guy you should ask for help here :))

Just repeating, in case...

Yo. 🙂 Is it possible to initialise a struct without setting every value? And how do you send a "default" (empty) array of structs or other custom types?

I have a ContractA[] which is populated and I want to assign it to _var x[] on a new instance of StructB. StructB also contains _var y[] which I want to be empty initially - I'm using LibQ for B -- LibQ contains methods which will deal with assigning _var y[] as needed. Hope that makes any kind of sense. 😂

(I come from dynamic typing languages mostly, as you might be able to tell if you're "multi-lingual" so to speak.. ;D)

Woow impressive

Y is actually an enum if that changes anything...

Maybe I make StructB a contract and have an overloaded constructor... but that doesn't seem to work? Like, constructor won't accept array of custom type? Or maybe that's just as the first argument?

Thanks for being my rubber duckies, even if nobody answers. ;D

Man I think you are naively missing the point of the burns you are referring

The reason why you see them is to hide the real % of the supply held by the contract owner, that will keep existing Ig, it's useless fighting it

You would need to educate the apes

One single coin explaining the concept may stop creation of others that apes follow

I agree its terrible and I didnt think it through but worth mentioning it I guess

Let's say I burn 50% of supply, keep 10% and send 40% to pancake, on bscscan people see that I keep 10% of the supply while in reality I hold 25%

This is why you see this widespread

Yeah I noticed it no worries

I don't understand why doing like you say would stop this habit

Yeah sure don't put brakes on your creativity

How about setting fees for real burn instead of sending them to addresses? Is that possible?

I mean as gas, but anyway that may ne useless in economic view

That's what most coins do afaik

Like first they send to dead address to hide their dev wallet % and then the burn made by fees is real

Not sure I got your idea

Setting gas higher than normal, relative to 4% you find of coins, just to burn them for increased rarity

What is the point of doing that?

Decrease supply in reality, instead of "burning" since thats what apes seek

By making them pay more bnb in a transaction?

Why would you alter gas price?

By letting them pay 4% they pay on other coin's burns

For the sake of decreasing supply

If people are burning legitimately, they go to the global burn wallet containing untold billions that will never again move. If it's going to any other wallet then yeah, it's a scam unless it can be proven that nobody holds the keys to that wallet, which should be damn near impossible... if I'm wrong then that burn wallet dude is sneaking up on the 0,001%ers or something... on ETH mainnet, fucking fugeddaboudit!

Lol

He meant to say: create 100 tokens, send 2 to yourself and then burn 90, so you have about 20% of coins which sounds reasonable as a normal buyer would invest, nobody notices its stolen since start by devs

And the burn concept takes place, enforcing that illusion

Apes will be apes, public will continue to jump in with no idea and I hate to see it happening really

Almost every burn at start is scam basically, and apes love it

I didnt mean to offend all devs buddy, but its common practice these days and sorry if it sounded bad to you

I think the only way to stop it, is to find a better way

Let apes look for another concept

If something makes gives more profit to the owner of the coins there is no way to stop it

The only purpose of 99% of coins built on bsc is to give the owner of the token a profit

99% of coins published last 2 months are also forks, with no new features

Its becoming a hedge fund store, creating something better may stop it

Wish I had your optimism ahahah

Forks will keep happening but majority could jump in decent coins

How he edited only "50.000€" to improve the shill, all other text is other font size 🤣

Burn before you even launch = inflating perceived value to make mindless apes and moonboys go ape and moony.

Burn after presale = a free pump/discount to reward those who took a risk on a black box. Somewhat punishes bots as a nice side effect.

Burn after that = stabilising price movement and mitigating violent moves downwards, and encouraging new buyers to buy and hold - not on it's own though obviously.

"Special" milestone burns = thanking everyone who has helped by buying, shilling and making everyone money.

How are ANY of these but the first one a scam if you're completely transparent with

- which wallets belong to which devs
- documenting all presales

upon which it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you haven't

- received any more reflections than anyone else - maybe even disabled reflection for the team!
- sent any burns or charity/development/marketing funds to anyone's personal wallet

oh, and all operations wallets with
- timelock
- scheduled release
- multisig transactions to ensure no one person can remove funds unilaterally
- purpose of all withdrawals documented, and withdrawal process streamed, eventually also providing some proof of purchase. Fuck, you could even require a quorum of community members before transacting.

Anyone protesting that they can't POSSIBLY scam because they've renounced ownership - to the point of getting defensive and crying/raging about it instead of showing ACTUAL good faith by protecting the funds in the ways shown above IS scamming.

Don't renounce ownership. If there's anything that creates false "hype" and makes idiots forget about risk, it's that. And it just limits you from doing anything remotely interesting. I was even in a token (Shiba Diamond... 🖕) where they renounced after everyone bitched and called them scammers; then everyone started bitching about there being no burns or that there should be more reflection or whatever... so they put up a poll asking if they should UNrenounce. What the actual fuck? Next day, the thing is rugged to fuck and they're on VC in tears (fake as fuck, or maybe real because they were having major anxiety after all the drugs they did partying with the community's $400,0000 - but they were "sleeping", and then they got "hacked" and were getting "death threats" and shit, like boo fucking hoo, cool story shitbird).

Working on it.

Sorry, I was referring only to the one by saying "every burn at the start"

I do agree that milestone and burna after stable price are useful somehow

Is it actually possible to unrenounce, as you said, if transaction hash of unrenounce is found in the transaction list?

I mean is there a trick to keep it even if you complete transaction? Except setting your bro as new owner I mean, a real dead address

no you cant

unless you have a hidden function to do that

Is there any sign of it except noticing it in code or audit?

I mean on transaction hash

no, people can say they have renounced, but without proper audit or code reading, it could be a big lie

example I can have a timer to unrenounce after 1 month somewhere in the code

Gotcha, its an option and valley of sea is correct to say never really renounce

As long as it can do well without an audit, its worth keeping it even if not for profits

personally, no sane or long term project will renounce

because if it really has utility devs will need to make changes

to some parameters in the future

Excatly, idk why its a big deal of ownership if the project looks decent, some teams are even publicly known who are the devs

Good point, but not a good solution🙂

I totally see your point. Other than marketing gimmick, I don't see any practical need for creating one bazillion tokens and sending half of it to burn. You could simply create the amount needed after the burn and totally avoid the burn transaction...

hahaha, true, actually marketing too is very important

And incase if you have missed, erc20 already have an efficient burn mechanism

No offense, but creating new wallet to collect burn fee is a stupid and inefficient idea

not entirely stupid, I know one project who rather invest these tokens to be burned and use the earnings to buy back and burn

they burn 30% on spot, sell 50% to cake

stake the cake

use the earnings to buyback and burn

so at the end of the day, tokenomics counts

Umm how does that relate to creating new wallet on each transaction?

oops, wallet on each tx is bad

I didnt get your point

Yeah I've heard about them too. But checked out the code, and everything is done manually

That was his proposed solution, which is extremely inefficient

thats not good

unless you have a cool reason behind that

Exactly. You'd be deploying useless contracts which you also have to pay double, even triple of normal gas fee than normal transfer fee

😀

Implementing burn is super easy, yet the deflationary tokens made people think its something really hard to achieve

I dont understand why it seems inefficient really removing them, compared to the burn that happens

4% fee of burn happening already, im just saying to actually burn them for real

Explain the "for real", if you really burn, so you decrease the supply what is the problem?

Decrease of supply means higher price by tokenomocs

"Burn" by sending to a dead address does nothing

Just adds insignificant liquidity

??

Small liquidity, since tokens are never sold and keep growing

Basically coins that have fees for liquidity pools and burn today, have double liquidity pool while calling half of it burn

Dead address counts as a holder, nothing is ever "burnt"

That's the deal, they actually made people believe that it WAS renounced and there was nothing they could do, whether that was because they actually sent it to a wallet they controlled and nobody checked properly, and they had some insanely good and convincing FUD killers on "payroll" posing as regular community members who just "volunteered" as mods - a lethal weapon in any scammers' arsenal. I've stopped being complacent since then, and especially since I've started coding my own tokens and realised how easy it is to fool people into taking your code for legit when most smart contracts are clear and easy enough to read that you could basically learn the syntax in a day with YouTube or just Googling, if you aren't out to write your own code! And there's this blind faith in scum like DxSale who make mind-bending profits while the bots they enable (many of them their own, I wouldn't doubt!) make sure everyone else *loses*, hard. Talk about bad actors...

If I'm not wrong, a smart contract function that is public is entirely permissionless - like, Solidity doesn't even have any sort of native access control
beyond "assert/require(address 0x...) - so there could be a (maybe quite well hidden) function that will restore ownership to their own hard-coded wallet address so it doesn't matter if somebody else triggers it. Like, there's really no such thing as an OWNER, it's just become common practice to treat the contract CREATOR (or some other wallet...) as such; it wasn't the way the contracts were designed... idk. xD

I gather, that the "gas peg tokens" like CHI and GAS and others GENERATE funds by creating AND destroying smart contracts when they are sent along with a purchase on say 1inch — I understand there's some sort of bounty for "cleaning up" the blockchain that they exploit to make the net cost of your transaction cheaper despite the immediate gas price being greater, sometimes significantly so!

check group in bio

You are partially right. They are not creating and destroying contracts, but rather "storage". EVM provides gas refund on every storage release (which is now negligible on recent fork)