Add EIP-5320: Harberger Taxes NFT by greenlucid · Pull Request #5320 · ethereum/EIPs

greenlucid · 2022-07-24T07:17:52Z

No description provided.

eth-bot · 2022-07-24T07:18:33Z

Hi! I'm a bot, and I wanted to automerge your PR, but couldn't because of the following issue(s):

(fail) eip-5320.md

classification
`newEIPFile`

File with name EIPS/eip-5320.md is new and new files must be reviewed
This PR requires review from one of [@lightclient, @axic, @SamWilsn, @Pandapip1]

github-actions · 2022-07-24T07:19:46Z

The commit bffc802 (as a parent of 213ef96) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

github-actions · 2022-07-24T07:22:35Z

The commit e066be5 (as a parent of 213ef96) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

MicahZoltu

Make sure you address all of the feedback from the bot (see inline comments in files tab in GitHub), and address any CI failures that appear to be problems with the EIP.

EIPS/eip-5320.md

github-actions · 2022-07-24T09:42:36Z

The commit 6d8c9bd (as a parent of 213ef96) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

Pandapip1

This EIP is looking good.

EIPS/eip-5320.md

Pandapip1 · 2022-07-24T15:28:23Z

EIPS/eip-5320.md

+
+### EIP-20 compatibility
+
+EIP-20 compliant tokens are a widespread industry standard and using native tokens is limiting.  


One caveat: what if someone makes an EIP-20 token, gives themselves all of it, and then values the NFT at 1 base unit of that token?

That's for the Harberger Tax contract to decide. The deployer can define what the allowed currency is. For example, in this implementation the currency is defined at construction time, so you can, for example, make the allowed currency be WETH.

Having a single, enforced currency is not enforced at the standard level, but ideally a contract shouldn't allow any EIP-20 token because it opens up these attacks.

Could you put this in the Security Considerations?

HT may be philosophically incompatible with fungibility because each token, by nature of having a self-assessed valuation, is non-fungible.

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

github-actions · 2022-07-27T11:06:46Z

The commit bbccb8f (as a parent of b81b7e4) contains errors. Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

mdnorman · 2022-07-30T13:36:14Z

EIPS/eip-5320.md

+  /// @dev call this to change the perceived valuation of the token.
+  /// @param _tokenId The identifier of the token to change valuation of.
+  /// @param _valuation The new valuation of the token.
+  function changeValuation(uint256 _tokenId, uint256 _valuation) external;


since there's no "tax period", it's hard to know when taxes must be paid for someone who owns this token. I was working with CityDAO on this a proposal for using Harberger taxes on a parcel of land, and one of the things that folks need to know is when the collection period is. You don't want to make it a single date because then folks will try to game the system, and you don't want to make it "all year long" because you don't know when it will actually be assessed.

I wrote up quite a bit of detail here if you want to take a look. It may inform this EIP in some ways to make tax collection more standardized.

@mdnorman This comment would be better suited for the discussions-to link so it doesn't get lost. Comments on the PR itself should be limited to editorial type things, while comments on the content itself should go in the discussions-to. PRs are very transient in nature, while the discussion link is much more long lived.

Thanks. First timer commenting on an EIP. I've copied my commentary to the discussion.

EIPS/eip-5320.md

MicahZoltu · 2022-07-31T07:11:57Z

EIPS/eip-5320.md

+  /// @dev buy a token. This function must succeed if 
+  /// @param _tokenId The identifier of the token to buy.
+  /// @param _offer The maximum amount offered to buy this token.
+  /// @param _valuation The valuation the token will have after a successful purchase.
+  /// @param _fund The fund put in to pay for the taxes of the token.
+  function buy(uint256 _tokenId, uint256 _offer, uint256 _valuation, uint256 _fund) external;


The specification should make it explicit that when this function is called, collect must be called internally before the sale completes.

MicahZoltu · 2022-07-31T07:13:09Z

EIPS/eip-5320.md

+  /// @dev call this to manually send pending taxes to the collector.
+  /// This function should be callable by any external party.
+  /// @param _tokenId The identifier of the token to pay taxes for.
+  function collect(uint256 _tokenId) external;


The specification should assert what happens when collect fails for any reason. Presumably the remaining funds would be collected and the NFT's valuation would be set to 0 (which would allow anyone to acquire the property for free)?

Presumably the remaining funds would be collected and the NFT's valuation would be set to 0 (which would allow anyone to acquire the property for free)?

Shouldn't this transfer the token to the collector, not set the valuation to zero? The collector is owed taxes, but didn't receive them.

MicahZoltu · 2022-07-31T07:13:50Z

EIPS/eip-5320.md

+  /// @dev call this to revoke ownership of a token.
+  /// @param _tokenId The identifier of the token to revoke.
+  function revoke(uint256 _tokenId) external;


This feels unnecessary. The owner can just set the valuation to 0, which would make the property free to acquire by anyone.

MicahZoltu · 2022-07-31T07:14:26Z

EIPS/eip-5320.md

+  /// @dev call this to remove excess funding for the token.
+  /// if the resultant fund for the token was zero, it must be revoked.
+  /// @param _tokenId The identifier of the token to defund.
+  /// @param _value The amount to retrieve from the token's fund.
+  function defund(uint256 _tokenId, uint256 _value) external;


This should probably assert that the valuation gets set to 0 as a side effect of defunding.

MicahZoltu · 2022-07-31T07:17:30Z

EIPS/eip-5320.md

+  /// @dev call this to change the perceived valuation of the token.
+  /// @param _tokenId The identifier of the token to change valuation of.
+  /// @param _valuation The new valuation of the token.
+  function changeValuation(uint256 _tokenId, uint256 _valuation) external;


Security Considerations section should mention that collect SHOULD be called internally from this method prior to changing the valuation to avoid tax evasion.

JasoonS · 2022-08-02T16:37:42Z

EIPS/eip-5320.md

+
+### Taxes and funds are per token, not per account
+
+This made for a simpler implementation, but it may be too naive. Please give feedback on how to implement this.


Still need to go through this more and give my thoughts (at a retreat this week, so might have to wait).

But at https://wildcards.world we had a system where users could share deposits between their harberger NFTs, and the harberger tax of those NFTs could go to multiple different beneficiaries. (hence it is "scalable" for users to own multiple NFTs that share a deposit and fund multiple beneficiaries).

I gave a presentation on this a while ago which can be found here: https://youtu.be/LYm-cVuo0sg and here is the slideshow: Harberger Tax Contract Overview.pdf

Here are those contracts, which might be an interesting reference.

I believe use-cases are limited where there isn't this kind of flexibility, and it would be sad if the contract interface was drastically different between them.

A fun and enlightening task (no promise on timeline) would be to see if I can refactor the Wildcards contracts to be compliant with this EIP 👍

will-holley · 2022-08-04T00:03:52Z

EIPS/eip-5320.md

+  /// @param _owner The owner of the token after the purchase.
+  /// if equal to address(0), it means the token was revoked.
+  /// @param _amount The amount that was paid in this transaction.
+  event TokenBought(uint256 indexed _tokenId, address indexed _owner, uint256 _amount);


"Lease" and "Leasor" are a better fit here; one of the core ideas of HT is that an asset within this system cannot be "owed" (as commonly understood within the prevailing contexts of private ownership).

will-holley · 2022-08-04T00:06:00Z

EIPS/eip-5320.md

+  /// fund was updated.
+  /// @param _tokenId The identifier of the token that had a fund change.
+  /// @param _amount The updated amount of the fund.
+  event TokenFunded(uint256 indexed _tokenId, uint256 _amount);


The standard should not assume that a deposit model is necessary. Deposit vs. non-deposit are alternative methods with their own respective tradeoffs (which should be documented as part of this standard).

EIPS/eip-5320.md

SamWilsn · 2022-08-12T17:31:43Z

EIPS/eip-5320.md

+The main obvious case of Harberger Taxes is to be used as a coordination mechanism for land allocation, but, to give some examples:
+
+- Real-world land allocation.
+- Digital land allocation (videogames, social experiments...).
+- Advertisement Space in websites.
+- Governance mechanisms that use "seats" subject to Harberger.
+- Social media that requires holding a token to interact.
+


These use cases can go in the Motivation section. They don't belong in a technical abstract.

EIPS/eip-5320.md

SamWilsn · 2022-08-12T17:42:01Z

EIPS/eip-5320.md

+  /// @param _value The taxes that have been paid.
+  event TaxPaid(uint256 indexed _tokenId, uint256 _value);
+
+  /// @dev buy a token. This function must succeed if 


Might want to finish this sentence?

SamWilsn · 2022-08-12T17:43:54Z

EIPS/eip-5320.md

+  /// @dev call this to manually send pending taxes to the collector.
+  /// This function should be callable by any external party.
+  /// @param _tokenId The identifier of the token to pay taxes for.
+  function collect(uint256 _tokenId) external;


Presumably the remaining funds would be collected and the NFT's valuation would be set to 0 (which would allow anyone to acquire the property for free)?

Shouldn't this transfer the token to the collector, not set the valuation to zero? The collector is owed taxes, but didn't receive them.

Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <57262657+SamWilsn@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <micah@zoltu.net>

github-actions · 2022-09-13T00:23:56Z

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

EIPS/eip-5320.md

xinbenlv · 2022-09-24T22:10:41Z

EIPS/eip-5320.md

+  /// @dev call this to fund the item, to pay for the maintenance taxes.
+  /// @param _tokenId The identifier of the token to fund.
+  /// @param _value The amount sent to fund the token.
+  function fund(uint256 _tokenId, uint256 _value) external;


Which amount of token is this _value here representing?

github-actions · 2022-10-13T00:28:02Z

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

devdomsos · 2022-10-24T21:05:21Z

EIPS/eip-5320.md

+  /// if the resultant fund for the token was zero, it must be revoked.
+  /// @param _tokenId The identifier of the token to defund.
+  /// @param _value The amount to retrieve from the token's fund.
+  function defund(uint256 _tokenId, uint256 _value) external;


Do we have to have this function in the standard? If yes, then where exactly should this function be used and what is the benefit of having defunding available for users?

github-actions · 2022-11-12T00:23:07Z

There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

github-actions · 2022-12-25T00:18:52Z

This pull request was closed due to inactivity. If you are still pursuing it, feel free to reopen it and respond to any feedback or request a review in a comment.

init harberger ad erc

bffc802

eth-bot added the ambiguous label Jul 24, 2022

chore: set eip number

e066be5

greenlucid changed the title ~~Add EIP-XXXX: Harberger Taxes NFT~~ Add EIP-5320: Harberger Taxes NFT Jul 24, 2022

eth-bot added newEIPFile and removed ambiguous labels Jul 24, 2022

MicahZoltu reviewed Jul 24, 2022

View reviewed changes

EIPS/eip-5320.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

EIPS/eip-5320.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fix: typos and proper formatting

6d8c9bd

Pandapip1 reviewed Jul 24, 2022

View reviewed changes

poojaranjan mentioned this pull request Jul 26, 2022

EIP editor apprenticeship meeting 22 ethcatherders/EIPIP#160

Closed

greenlucid and others added 2 commits July 27, 2022 13:02

fix: specification header

bbccb8f

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

fix: add link to eip-20

921d275

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

mdnorman reviewed Jul 30, 2022

View reviewed changes

MicahZoltu reviewed Jul 31, 2022

View reviewed changes

JasoonS reviewed Aug 2, 2022

View reviewed changes

guoliu mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2022

[Space] Discussion & Doc of ERC standard proposal thematters/developer-resource#101

Open

will-holley reviewed Aug 4, 2022

View reviewed changes

SamWilsn closed this Aug 12, 2022

SamWilsn reopened this Aug 12, 2022

github-actions bot added classification: new EIP and removed newEIPFile labels Aug 12, 2022

eth-bot added the newEIPFile label Aug 12, 2022

SamWilsn reviewed Aug 12, 2022

View reviewed changes

SamWilsn removed the newEIPFile label Aug 18, 2022

Pandapip1 removed classification: new EIP labels Aug 26, 2022

Pandapip1 requested a review from eth-bot as a code owner August 28, 2022 18:03

Apply suggestions from code review

fc2f0d9

Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <57262657+SamWilsn@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Micah Zoltu <micah@zoltu.net>

github-actions bot added c-new Creates a brand new proposal s-draft This EIP is a Draft t-erc labels Aug 28, 2022

Pandapip1 added the w-response Waiting on author response label Aug 28, 2022

github-actions bot added w-stale Waiting on activity and removed w-stale Waiting on activity labels Sep 13, 2022

Pandapip1 mentioned this pull request Sep 15, 2022

Stale action counts its own labeling/comment as activity actions/stale#825

Closed

xinbenlv reviewed Sep 24, 2022

View reviewed changes

EIPS/eip-5320.md Show resolved Hide resolved

xinbenlv reviewed Sep 24, 2022

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the w-stale Waiting on activity label Oct 13, 2022

devdomsos reviewed Oct 24, 2022

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot removed the w-stale Waiting on activity label Oct 26, 2022

github-actions bot added the w-stale Waiting on activity label Nov 12, 2022

github-actions bot closed this Dec 25, 2022


		### EIP-20 compatibility

		EIP-20 compliant tokens are a widespread industry standard and using native tokens is limiting.


		### Taxes and funds are per token, not per account

		This made for a simpler implementation, but it may be too naive. Please give feedback on how to implement this.

Conversation

greenlucid commented Jul 24, 2022

Uh oh!

eth-bot commented Jul 24, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

(fail) eip-5320.md

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jul 24, 2022

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jul 24, 2022

Uh oh!

MicahZoltu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jul 24, 2022

Uh oh!

Pandapip1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jul 27, 2022

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JasoonS Aug 2, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Sep 13, 2022

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Oct 13, 2022

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

eth-bot commented Jul 24, 2022 •

edited

Loading

JasoonS Aug 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading