UST fees - a choice between UST and MIR?

I find it very annoying that when one tries to sell Mirror assets, swap or unstake, the charge is always in UST. I currently have .23 UST on my Mirror account and the only way to do any of the above is to transfer UST from another account e.g. Luna or Anchor. Why isn’t there a way for the system to automatically charge also fees in MIR adjusted to the UST price of the moment ?

1 Like

Being paid in MIR means they are buy back MIR from terraswap, thus bringing up the price of MIR. Mirror only works if the rewards are there… Just sell your rewards if you don’t want them, but what you’re suggesting is bringing down the entire incentive structure…

2 Likes

Hi there. Thank you for the contribution. I believe there is a misunderstanding here. I’m not talking about selling MIR per se ( I’m a hodler anyways). I’m talking about any transaction involving Mirror has to be paid in UST. If one doesn’t have any UST on his MIR wallet, he has to sell some or unstake/ sell some just to provide some UST for any transaction. I hope this makes it more clear.

If fees on Mirror were to be charged in MIR, I believe they would have to be swapped to Luna or a stablecoin like UST behind the scenes, just to simply transact on the Terra blockchain. I don’t necessarily think that is a bad idea, because when Mirror users are getting low on UST for fees this is probably what they will do anyway. Anchor also only allows UST for fees as well. Adding an option like MIR for Mirror fees or ANC for Anchor fees to the protocols could make things easier for users, which is often a positive overall. I assume Mirror protocol could then manage the minimum MIR used for fees to account for the swap to the minimum UST required for tx fees on chain.

You would still need to have UST to pay for the original swap of MIR into UST…

What is being proposed is a critical change to the core architecture of Terra that has severe security implications. It’s like saying “why can’t i pay ethereum fees using UNI when I’m making a Uniswap trade?” with exactly the same implications.

Can’t you pay 1Inch fees with 1Inch token though?

Not saying this is a good idea, but I do think it’s possible

Thank you everyone for your contributions. Very educational.

Well, maybe it’s in the interest of Terra to always try and keep a certain ratio of UST available, a liquidity of sorts within the eco system. After all, if we have extreme volatility on the market, I suppose the one less likely to slump is UST.

I’m not sure it works like that, but thank you nevertheless.

Don’t know, never used it. Anyone knows of any platform where you can pay for gas fees in platform’s token ? I mean, even Pancake swap uses BNB for fees.

If the blockchain supports the operation, you can pay gas one time to authorize the smart contract, an then sign transactions (for free) after that. Then the smart contract pays the fees on your behalf. In the case of 1inch, if you have given them permission then you can sign transaction and they will consume your 1inch tokens to cover the transaction fees.

I am not aware of whether these operations are possible on Terra. I have not seen any application that does free transactions by signature. I’m not active on any other Cosmos SDK blockchains.

For the record, if you’re going to say “xyx does it, so it must be possible” your examples absolutely have to come from Terra or other Cosmos blockchains. Terra uses different technologies than Ethereum, so assuming compatibility is a big mistake. I realize I started it with UNI example, but I was pointing out the security implications.
Furucombo used the same operations as 1inch, and when their servers were hacked last year all their customers wallets were drained. Frankly, I’d rather pay transaction fees!

Good point. I guess in a way it strengthens the underlying stable coin to always pay gas in UST so I’m ready to drop my case. Thank you. Well researched and good argument.