Transaction Details

Transaction Hash:
0x78 2146adaac3659c41e4b51a73c5fe47844e2d69cb32c031a8580fce6a96 56e3
Status:
Success
Block:
Timestamp:
Interacted With:
Value:
0 Pulse
Transaction Fee:
0.00501805 Pulse
Effective Gas Price:
46 Beat
Execution Stats:
Used 109088 out of 132020 Gas (83%)
Gas Fees:
Base Block Fee: 43.91047169 Beat | Max Overall Fee: 46 Beat | Max Priority Fee: 46 Beat
Attributes:
Txn Type: 2 (EIP-1559)
Nonce: 6
Block Position: 52
Call Data:
Name:
VoteCast(address indexed voter, uint256 proposalId, uint8 support, uint256 votes, string reason)
Topics:
0 0xb8e138887d0aa13bab447e82de9d5c1777041ecd21ca36ba824ff1e6c07ddda4
1 0x000000000000000000000000535b3ddd9939056cb6d74d1253ae1a4adf5d723a
Data (Decoded):
proposalId uint256
100
reason string
(i) the short-timeframe between when the reduction to 50% to now (only 1 month) does not, in our opinion, enable an appropriate time to really analyze and assess the effectiveness of the response (slashing rewards) to the stated problem. 1 month is simply too short a time to really understand if it is being effective/addressing the issue; (ii) it does not appear that there is a long-term/strategic centralization plan for Compound. This sentiment was brought up in the forum discussions - whereby, the commenters basically argued that a much higher-level/strategic view needed to be done on a systemic basis, with more stakeholders, to really take these kinds of major decisions regarding how to best approach decentralization, including this issue of rewards, at a more strategic/thoughtful level. Further, it was noted that there were not enough attempt by the proposer to get more stakeholders to comment/get involved in the proposal/addressing the issue. Basically, a few commenters indicated that hard changes can/should be attempted - but they should be done in a strategic way, and involve more stakeholders than had occurred in this process.
support uint8
%!s(uint8=0)
voter address
votes uint256
50000000000000000000000
Data (Hex):