Resolutely opposed, now every trc20 transfer requires a handling fee of 0.5-1.2trx, if it is increased by 5 times, the fee will be 2.5-6trx, although it is much lower than ethereum, but for exchanges, such a large-scale trading platform Said it will burn a lot of trx

抗议！坚决反对！！不要在做死的道路上越走越远。

Absolutely opposed to this. The feedback from users has already been negative in terms of the previous rate increase. Users are using the swaps less and finding that they trade less on Trontrade and Poloniex. I've heard from countless people that they are finding much more friction in actually interacting with tron, where previously you didn't need to think about tx costs and that was a huge selling point for new users. As a dev who has frozen every scrap of TRX, and thats a considerable portion, and is still coming up short on energy, if this increase were to go through I would likely not be able to continue doing what I am doing. This would not inspire me to buy more TRX to freeze because I literally can't.

I think in short this would make Tron less competitive with chains like BSC and other low cost chains and thats where Tron can get really hurt. Sure we'll still be cheaper than Eth, but thats not hard, we need to stay easy to use and cheaper than the majority of fast chains.

This also assumes that just because the previous increase didn't dramatically decrease transactions, that another increase wouldn't have a deleterious effect. I would counter that the previous increase took us right up to the edge of user and dev threshold but that another massive increase would put us well past the point where you would see a dramatic drop off in transactions. Furthermore that contract with massive calls is also burning a bunch of TRX, so let them burn it.

Absolutely opposed, I'm currently consuming 3000TRX a day, 5 times 15000, I can't afford it.
If it goes up, I'll going to the BSC

坚决反对，手续费想和eth比自己有什么优势。涨成功果断抛弃trx链回归eth链。垃圾刚刚涨价4倍又涨价5倍。加起来就20倍了，在过两个月就100倍了。就靠手续费过日子了

必须抵制这种枪击行为半年20倍

现在单次触发合约手续费就18trx了，涨价了还能存活，辛辛苦苦发展的会员用户资金都消耗在手续费上了，钱赚不到还背锅，还不如去eth

I think everyone has overlooked an important issue
At present, exchanges have frozen a large number of TRX in order to vote, and while freezing, they have also obtained a lot of resources, but they do not use these resources. Formally because of this, the cost for others to freeze TRX to obtain resources has become higher.

I think TIP-207 is a good proposal. The freezing can only get one of votes, bandwidth or energy. In this way, everyone can freeze according to their own needs, which may greatly reduce the cost of freezing TRX to obtain resources because most people will choose to freeze for voting.

Raising transaction fees will be good in the long run and TRX will be more valuable. Inevitably, it will hurt some developers' interests. I hope there is not so much of a rush, is it possible to raise it 3x first?

It’s terrible, a 5 times increase will definitely be detrimental to some small developers, but I don’t think low prices are a good thing

现在单次触发合约就0.5$了增加5倍就是2$如果trx的价格翻倍就是4$涨可以太频繁了刚刚涨两个月，现在在涨价就是20倍了，没有涨4倍之前市场上还能经常看到有波场的dapp现在基本上没有新的dapp出现了，如果再一次涨价成功，市场上不会在看不到新的dapp出现

I would vote in "Reduce the circulation".

Based on the calculation, after changing the unit price to 200 sun, there will be no inflation anymore.

and currently, the only way to destroy TRX is to burn it. that would definitely a positive impact on Tron network.
Since it is called discussion, I would say 200 sun might be a little high, if the aim is to reduce the circulation, here is another angle :

This is how they calculate the TRX net increase: 28792*176 - (37285168266 + 359010894) *200 / 1000000 = -2461443
if we change the price we can easily see the threshold of TRX net increase.

• 130 SUN : 173648.7092
• 140 SUN: -202793.0824

means if we change the unit price to 140 SUN, then there will be no inflation. so I would go with 140 SUN instead of 200 SUN.

Let us see more opinions here

I oppose the idea of increasing it to 5 times, we should stick with 40 SUN,
It's detrimental for both developers and end-users.
And it defeats the purpose of TRON which is known to be cheaper transaction fees.

Instead of increasing, we can look at the TIP-207

The people proposing we should take a look at TIP-207 don't seem to understand the main issue here, which is to discourage spam txns.

I propose looking into a progressive fee increase model where the txn fee increases progressively when an account makes a large number of txns in a short amount of time. Here's how it works.

The energy price for the first txn an account makes will start at 40 sun. If the same account makes X number of txns in Y seconds, the energy price increases by Z for subsequent txns. And if the account keeps making X number of txns in Y seconds, it'll keep increasing by Z every Y seconds.

E.g. If we assume X as 10,000 and Y as 3,600 seconds (1 hr) and Z as 5 sun, then, if an account makes 10K txns or more in 3,600 seconds, then the energy price for the subsequent txns from that account will be increased by 5 sun, which makes it 45 sun. If the account continues to make txns at the same rate, then the energy price will keep increasing by 5 sun every 3,600 seconds. If the account stops making 10K txns in 3600 seconds, then the energy price decreases by 5 sun every 3600 seconds until it reaches to 40 sun again.

The X, Y and Z values should be configurable just like the energy fee.

Support this proposal.
Through increase the price of bandwidth and energy, the whole chain is more secure.
Moreover, this proposal cost TRX deflation, the TRX price will also rise.
And after increase, the cost is just 200 SUN, is still cheap enough.

We are completely against an increase in costs because:

It does not slow down inflation in the long run but massively increases it.
Reasons:
Already implemented in version 20 of the FullNode:

• Black hole will be deactivated. Link
• Fee forwarding to SR (1-27) Link
• No burning of fees

Advantages:

• SR 1-27, which is already producing, will generate much more revenue than before.

Disadvantages:

• Inflation increases
• Fees increase
• existing projects as well as smaller start-ups are destroyed or hindered
• attractiveness decreases

Calculation example:
A transaction without energy or bandwidth costs approximately until now:

TRC10 transfer:
before: 0.01128 TRX
after: 0.05640 TRX

This corresponds to a minimum quantity of: 4.7 BTT to send. (cost price)

TRC20 Transfer: (USDT)
before: 0.01128 TRX + 1.18524 TRX = 1.19652 TRX
after: 0.0564 TRX + 5.92620 TRX = 5.98260 TRX

This corresponds to a minimum quantity of: 0.16 USDT. (cost price)

A reward distribution or dividend distribution has significantly higher costs, that also affects trading on well-known decentralized exchanges such as TronTrade or PoloniDex.

Quote: "The current Ethereum network resource cost is 119 times that of TRON. If the unit price of TRON energy is adjusted to 200 sun, the TRON network resource cost will still be only 1/24 of Ethereum."

Ethereum should not be a comparison.

Average transaction cost for coins worth 100 USDT.

LTC = 0.0003 USD
Average transaction fee is 0.05209%, median fee is 0.00203% = 0.0003 USD

BCH = 0.0010 USD
Average transaction fee is 0.00940%, median fee is 0.00323% = 0.0010 USD

TRX = 0.1600 USD

BTC = 0.6111 USD
Average transaction fee is 4.20549%, median fee is 3.76219% = 0.6111 USD

ETH = 2.0473 USD
Average transaction fee is 2.26090%, median fee is 2.29889% = 2.0473 USD

Source: http://cryptofees.net/

Counterproposal to prevent meaningless transactions:

• Increase the fees for creating a TRC10 token (from 1024TRX to 5120TRX).

• Increase the fees for deploying a SmartContract(from 1024TRX to 5120TRX)

• Preventing arbitrary listing on JustSwap.

Rationale: A thoughtful project also invests $150 for a token creation.

@fbsobreira Thanks for providing such detailed data as well as the analysis, this proposal is very valuable to see that the circulation of TRX will be greatly reduced and TRX will be safer and valuable.

First of all thanks @fbsobreira for the detailed information.

In one hand yes ETH is an competitor and yes maybe at the firts view transaction fees will be still lower than ETH.
But for me Tron stands for fast low cost transactions.

I think it is to early the change the fee structur again. in my opinion we should now work on the demand.

@tronfamily

I don't think this one can be a reason for your objection

It is just a proposal, even the code is there, but it does not mean this feature will be enabled. at least now it is still disabled.

Justin also disagrees with this proposal on his Twitter.

Twitter link: https://twitter.com/justinsuntron/status/1351419341007323136

We are completely against an increase in costs because:

It does not slow down inflation in the long run but massively increases it.
Reasons:
Already implemented in version 20 of the FullNode:

• Black hole will be deactivated. Link
• Fee forwarding to SR (1-27) Link
• No burning of fees

I would say there must be some misunderstanding of this item:

• Black hole will be deactivated.Link

This is from TIP-222, if you check the detailed implementation you can easily understand that this proposal is just to change the storage location of Burning TRX, previously it is storage in blackhole address, but in this proposal, it changes it to the database. all the burning TRX will still be removed from the total circulation no matter it is stored in blackhole address or database.

Yes. The storage change to TransactionFeePool and is coupled with: SR Fee

Or please explain, why the code is prepared for this but Justin Sun (Founder) don´t want this changes.

Good point to reduce junk transactions.

Supporting this proposal, although it is difficult for us to accept the increase in the handling fee for a while, we must realize that increasing the handling fee will have great benefits for the future development of TRON, making the transactions on the TRON chain more valuable and making the TRON chain more valuable. The assets on the Internet are more valuable, and it is us that will ultimately benefit.

I totally agree with this proposal.
As you said, this would further promote the freezing rate, reduce the TRX circulation, reduce the low-value transactions, and improve the security and reliability of the TRON network. That will b awesome for us!
What's more, the blockchain will be more secure, and price of TRX will rise soon!
200 SUN is not that expensive I think, I can accept this proposal! Go, TRON!

I think this is a good suggestion.
Although increasing the the unit price of energy and bandwidth to 5 times the current price, it is actually only 200 SUN. This will also reduce the low value transactions, which will improve the security and reliability of TRON network.

感觉波场调整到200还是有一定意义，就动机来说：减少不必要的交易，比如频繁进行一些没太大意义的合约，进一步提高链的安全性和稳定性，感觉还是挺符合链发展的一个趋势。

I propose to raise it to 20000 sun. I don't want to change my code all the time

I don't care about inflation, but I can agree with this if it genuinely reduces trash transactions. We've met more server busy recently than ever before. The reduction of high frequency but valueless transactions means our freezing is getting more resources, and of course, the network will be smooth.

The real danger of this TIP is when it is combined with TIP 207, Proposals to improve network resources model.

At today's prevailing rate, energy can be sold on the open market at a cost of 15 sun per energy unit, per day. At the rate that energy is currently obtained by freezing, 10k frozen TRX will receive 300k in energy per day, which can be sold for 4.5 TRX. An SR who pays out 100% of earnings to voters is only paying out about 2 TRX per day, so even at today's prevailing rate, freezing for energy is worth more than twice the voter rewards.

If TIP 207 becomes a proposal and passes, freezing for energy will overtake voting as the optimal method of generating revenue. Increasing the cost of energy by 5x will create a further disparity, making freezing for energy ten times more profitable than voting. Even if TIP 196 is enacted and burn fees are given to SR's to be passed along to voters, choosing energy over voting will still be 5x more profitable.

But if the network fees are left where they are, and TIP 196 passes, then freezing for energy and voting will generate more or less equal revenue streams.

The danger which comes with the combination of TIP 207 and TIP 232 is that the average TRON holder will no longer be voting, and will opt to make 5-10 times more by freezing for energy. This will rob the community run SR's of votes and ultimately their position in the top 27 elected SR's. Representatives who vote for themselves likely will not switch to the more profitable freeze for energy since it is too cumbersome to be sold at the scale that they hold TRX.

@bondibox I think you have overlooked a problem:The price of energy leasing is a market behavior. A large amount of energy flows to the leasing market, which will cause the price of energy leasing to drop. The market will automatically adjust, eventually making the benefits of freezing the acquisition of resources and acquiring the voting rights approximate.

@bondibox “10k frozen TRX will receive 300k in energy per day, which can be sold for 4.5 TRX”， 4.5trx， why？

That's just the prevailing rate at https://www.tokengoodies.com/trade
Some people have told me that in their experience it's closer to 1.5-1.8 TRX but I'm just going by the rate listed at tokengoodies which is 15 sun, although they don't say whether that is a per diem price or if it's the price for a 3 day freeze. If the 1.5 TRX price is right then the 15 sun quote would be for 3 days, so those numbers jibe that way.

@joker-gdb you make a good point but it's a two sided coin. If the price of energy goes up there will be more sellers on the leasing market but there could also be more demand from people who can't cover their costs through freezing alone. I.e. if they have just enough TRX to cover their costs right now, then a 5x increase in price means they will only get 20% of their needed energy for free.

@bondibox So, many things in it are unknown and cannot be quantified，It is difficult to predict the situation in the rental market, I think the two proposals 232 and 207 should not be discussed together. This will increase many unpredictable parameters. After the 232 takes effect, it will be much easier to discuss 207 according to the market situation

The 15 sun price on Tokengoodies is price per day, not for 3 days. When the energy price rises 5X, it means more people will freeze trx for energy. That'll make the energy rate ( currently 31 Energy for 1 trx frozen) go down. Which means you have to freeze a lot more trx to get the same amount of energy as now. Eventually, you'll get 4-5 energy per trx frozen which will make dapp devs say f it and stop running their dapps. The txn volume plunges, what little utility tron currently has disappears. Then, tron will become the chain where everybody just freezes their trx for voter rewards. And that's when we can all go home and move on with our lives. This is the only logical conclusion to reckless proposals.

The 15 sun price on Tokengoodies is price per day, not for 3 days. When the energy price rises 5X, it means more people will freeze trx for energy. That'll make the energy rate ( currently 31 Energy for 1 trx frozen) go down. Which means you have to freeze a lot more trx to get the same amount of energy as now. Eventually, you'll get 4-5 energy per trx frozen which will make dapp devs say f it and stop running their dapps. The txn volume plunges, what little utility tron currently has disappears. Then, tron will become the chain where everybody just freezes their trx for voter rewards. And that's when we can all go home and move on with our lives. This is the only logical conclusion to reckless proposals.

@otakuinny
You said ： "which will make dapp devs say f it and stop running their dapps"
What is the basis for your conclusion？

As a developer, they will definitely object because it increases their costs. They generally do not consider the long-term development of the chain, only the recent gains. The rise in resource prices itself is to drive out some low-value and high-frequency dapps.

Do you think that reducing resource fee is beneficial to the long-term development of the chain? Or are you just opposed to price increases？

I think the two proposals 232 and 207 should not be discussed together.

Well maybe they shouldn't be discussed as both or none, but I definitely think we should consider other pending ideas when making changes. The last network fee increase was implemented under the argument that it would lower inflation, this TIP is claiming that a 5x increase will make TRX deflationary. But the mechanism for distributing fees to SR's has already been added to 4.1.2. Claiming to lower inflation is a bogus argument not made it good faith. I think 232 and 207 are similarly tied together and regardless of the reasons being put forth at the moment, it's clear to me that the actual intention is to take votes away from the community SR's which is what will happen if both TIPs are passed as proposals.

@otakuinny I think you are dead on. My gut tells me that all signs point to TRON wanting to privatize this chain, and though they can't kick the dapps off they can make it so they can't afford to use TRON anymore. TRX price is being suppressed until OG holders abandon this coin in frustration and TF will buy all that TRX up in a fire sale with the money they've been making by dumping all their SR earnings at the current prices.

I think the two proposals 232 and 207 should not be discussed together.

Well maybe they shouldn't be discussed as both or none, but I definitely think we should consider other pending ideas when making changes. The last network fee increase was implemented under the argument that it would lower inflation, this TIP is claiming that a 5x increase will make TRX deflationary. But the mechanism for distributing fees to SR's has already been added to 4.1.2. Claiming to lower inflation is a bogus argument not made it good faith. I think 232 and 207 are similarly tied together and regardless of the reasons being put forth at the moment, it's clear to me that the actual intention is to take votes away from the community SR's which is what will happen if both TIPs are passed as proposals.

@otakuinny I think you are dead on. My gut tells me that all signs point to TRON wanting to privatize this chain, and though they can't kick the dapps off they can make it so they can't afford to use TRON anymore. TRX price is being suppressed until OG holders abandon this coin in frustration and TF will buy all that TRX up in a fire sale with the money they've been making by dumping all their SR earnings at the current prices.

@bondibox I thought I was discussing the proposal itself, not a conspiracy theory，I can’t express my opinion about this conspiracy theory

@bondibox I thought I was discussing the proposal itself, not a conspiracy theory，I can’t express my opinion about this conspiracy theory

Fair enough, I'm just saying how I see this all unfolding in time, given the set of historical facts which I won't bother to go into detail.

@Omo-Coc, are you really asking me what the basis for my conclusion is when I said that a business will cease to exist if the cost of running it increases 5 fold?

And it's disparaging to say dapp devs are only interested in short term gains. These are not people who have a lot of venture capital backing them. They have limited resources to run their dapps and cannot continue when the costs increase suddenly. If the cost of running a restaurant increases by 5x but the revenue remains the same, do you think the restaurant will stay in business for long.

@Omo-Coc, are you really asking me what the basis for my conclusion is when I said that a business will cease to exist if the cost of running it increases 5 fold?

And it's disparaging to say dapp devs are only interested in short term gains. These are not people who have a lot of venture capital backing them. They have limited resources to run their dapps and cannot continue when the costs increase suddenly. If the cost of running a restaurant increases by 5x but the revenue remains the same, do you think the restaurant will stay in business for long.

@otakuinny I think your basis is too simplistic. As a restaurant owner, he certainly hopes that the rent will be cheap, even without money. As long as the price increases, he is very angry, but if you do not have enough data to show that the price increases by 5 times, the restaurant will not be able to operate.

If you compare tron to a shopping mall, if the rent of the store is too cheap, it is not a good thing, and it will also attract a lot of low-value businesses, which is not what mall managers see.

In addition, whether the restaurant can make money, the rent is only part of it. Even the low rent of unattractive meals will also be closed down.If you are a dapp developer, I think it is normal for you to complain.

@Omo-Coc, Bro, what?? You are now doubling down on your original silly question. You are asking me again for data to prove how increasing business costs by 5X will end the business. You might as well ask me for data to prove how breathing air is essential for living.

Here's a serious question. Putting the spam txns aside, do you not think the legitimate dapp volume will not suffer if you raise the energy fees 5 times? And don't' belittle dapp devs. Without them, there is no TRON. Their concerns are TRON's concerns. It's them that bring wider adoption to TRON, not the average user who just freezes/votes.

I sincerely hope this proposal does not pass. It is based on so many misguided mathematical assumptions. Here's one for example, @fbsobreira predicts that if the unit price of resources is increased to 200 sun, the amount of trx frozen will be around 44 Billion. If people are really freezing for resources, literally everyone will freeze for energy. This will mean freezing 1 trx will give you 2 energy units a day. Not 200, not 20 but 2!! Even simple smart contract txns cost 100s of thousands of energy units. So, freezing trx and receiving insufficient energy is useless. The only alternative now is burning trx when making txns. No one can afford to pay 15-20 Trx to make a simple smart contract txn. Like I said many times in my posts above, this will cause dapp volume to go down dramatically and tron will then be known as the chain where nothing happens.

In the last few days there has been some growing sense of awareness among the tron users on just how valuable tron can become, seeing as how many features it has that only a few other chains have. This appears to have some positive effect on the trx price. Don't screw this all up with half-assed, short term fixes that will very likely have long term negative effects.

If the issue is about the large amount spam txns slowing the network, then take your time and come up with a technical solution for it instead of punishing the whole tron community for the actions of a handful of contracts.

We may have missed a very important point! that is MAX_FEE_LIMIT

It is introduced in #204 and included in https://github.com/tronprotocol/java-tron/releases/tag/GreatVoyage-v4.1.2.

The unit price of Energy and Bandwith can be adjusted at any time through on-chain governance. When the unit price increases, the transaction cost will increase accordingly. After the unit price changed to 140SUN, the current MAX_FEE_LIMIT (1,000 TRX) is no longer applicable, so before we increase the price, please make sure that MAX_FEE_LIMIT is also adjusted accordingly.

You are right. This is a very important point.

The current price is 40sun, if increased to 140sun, it is 3.5 times of 40SUN. Does MAX_FEE_LIMIT also need to increase to 3,500 TRX?

Last time when the price increased from 10 SUN to 40 SUN, MAX_FEE_LIMIT is not changed, maybe no need to make the same increase. I would suggest increasing it to 3,000 TRX.

We may have missed a very important point! that is MAX_FEE_LIMIT

It is introduced in #204 and included in https://github.com/tronprotocol/java-tron/releases/tag/GreatVoyage-v4.1.2.

The unit price of Energy and Bandwith can be adjusted at any time through on-chain governance. When the unit price increases, the transaction cost will increase accordingly. After the unit price changed to 140SUN, the current MAX_FEE_LIMIT (1,000 TRX) is no longer applicable, so before we increase the price, please make sure that MAX_FEE_LIMIT is also adjusted accordingly.

Thank @vita-coffee and @call-me-nobody for your suggestion.

Both of you have very valid views. My suggestion is to change the MAX_FEE_LIMIT to 2,000 TRX to adapt different unit prices.

If you think that $70 is an appropriate amount to pay for a failed transaction then by all means, make it so.

Hey @Benson0224, this discussion is about increasing the price to 200 sun. Where did you get 140 sun from? And why do you say it like it's a done deal? I thought we are were still discussing it and based on the comments above more people oppose a price increase than support it. THIS is the no.1 problem with tron, not the price of trx, not the spam txns but the centralized control of every aspect by the tron foundation. This is what we don't like.

It looks like the best course of action is to convert all the trx you have to a stable coin (not usdj or usdt) like DAI and see how this plays out. I am tired of suffering losses from trx, no more.

First of all, I apologize for my unreasonable English expression since English is not my native language. I have modified the previous comments.

The following is what I really want to express：
From the discussion, there are objections and also suggestions to adjust to other prices. Adjusting MAX_FEE_LIMIT does not really affect the result of this discussion, but we did receive suggestions to adjust to 140SUN, 160SUN, and 200SUN. Based on these suggestions, the current MAX_FEE_LIMIT may affect or even limit the current complex contracts, so I suggest Modify the value of MAX_FEE_LIMIT to 2000TRX to adapt to different price increase plans. However, what the final result is and how much to adjust is still decided by all SRs and communities.

Hey @Benson0224, this discussion is about increasing the price to 200 sun. Where did you get 140 sun from? And why do you say it like it's a done deal? I thought we are were still discussing it and based on the comments above more people oppose a price increase than support it. THIS is the no.1 problem with tron, not the price of trx, not the spam txns but the centralized control of every aspect by the tron foundation. This is what we don't like.

MAX_FEE_LIMIT As its name shows, this value is only the maximum value of fee_limit, and the real fee_limit in the transaction is set by the developer himself.

Transaction failure only consumes up to fee_limit TRX. not $70,

If you think that $70 is an appropriate amount to pay for a failed transaction then by all means, make it so.

@Benson0224, an SR can either vote yes or no on a proposal. They can't suggest alternatives or unit prices other than 200 sun during voting. This thread is created to discuss the topic of raising the unit price to 200 sun. That is the proposal they will vote on. If you guys want to raise the price to 140 sun, please create another proposal and follow the same process as before and let the community discuss it.

Transaction failure only consumes up to fee_limit TRX. not $70,

If the fee_limit is set for 2,000 TRX, and the price of TRX is $0.035 then the fee limit is $70. Am I missing something? If a developer misconfigures a contract, or sets the contract to consume more than 2,000 TRX worth of energy, then the contract call will fail, and that failure will cost the user $70.

I definitely could have the math wrong here, but the above contract would be consuming 10 Million energy. That's ridiculous. TRON should do more to protect the users from poorly written contracts.

I think we should look at this issue from another angle. Even if you don't increase MAX_FEE_LIMIT, according to your example, if the developer's contract consumes more than 1000TRX, he will lose $35 too, and the developer will never be able to successfully execute the contract because the current MAX_FEE_LIMIT is 1000TRX. So this example can not be used as the reason for your objection.

From another point of view, The root cause of your example is the unreasonable contract design, regarding protecting developers, TRON provides developers with different testnets, online technical support, document support, and other methods to help developers avoid similar problems.

Check detail at : https://developers.tron.network/docs/resource-model#2-how-to-set-fee-limit-caller-must-read

Transaction failure only consumes up to fee_limit TRX. not $70,

If the fee_limit is set for 2,000 TRX, and the price of TRX is $0.035 then the fee limit is $70. Am I missing something? If a developer misconfigures a contract, or sets the contract to consume more than 2,000 TRX worth of energy, then the contract call will fail, and that failure will cost the user $70.

I definitely could have the math wrong here, but the above contract would be consuming 10 Million energy. That's ridiculous. TRON should do more to protect the users from poorly written contracts.

I think we should look at this issue from another angle. Even if you don't increase MAX_FEE_LIMIT, according to your example, if the developer's contract consumes more than 1000TRX, he will lose $35 too,

I read the link provided, and nowhere does it state that a developer is bound to pay 50% of the energy fee. In fact, it recommends that the caller provide up to 100% of the required energy.

This would be terrible for tron. We are trying to get small developers on the chain. Maybe in a few years when tron is on top. We are in the "free trial" period and then when tron is reputable and safe. We can increase burn to that level. If anything we should do small percentage increases like .5% to see how developers handle changes

Ok, guys. Right now we have situation when typical token to token swap operation (70-100k energy) costs about 10-14 TRX, which is $0.6-0.9. At the same time the same operation on BSC chain costs about $0.25-$0.3 even after BNB pumped to $300. It makes TRON uncompetitive for new DeFi projects.

Close this issue as the proposal already got passed on the mainnet.
Check detail at https://tronscan.org/#/proposal/51