Mint Incentivizing Network Transformation (MINT)

[RawthiL (Ramiro | POKTscan)]

@Dermot

Unclear Purpose

First off, my main concern is that it’s unclear what the actual objective of this proposal is. If it’s simply to prevent inflation from dropping as low as 4.98% (as per the ARR proposal), then it would be better to argue about this directly rather than introducing so much complexity and governance overhead by way of the introduction of 10 new parameters to govern and update over time. Notwithstanding how thoughtful this proposal is, it will still be way too unwiedly for new contributors to grok.

The purpose is not just to bring down inflation, it is specifically about adding “something else”. We used the 5% reference to make sure that this proposal is not regarded as a greedy proposal coming from a node running company.

The intention is to reduce inflation and more importantly give perspective and projection.

@Dermot

Further, given that we are about to start a major first principles review of Pocket’s economics as part of the economic R&D workstream for v1, it is unlikely that this newly proposed system will be relevant for v1, or even in a few months. So the cost/benefit is unclear.

The V1 research will be way more complex than this proposal, simply by the number of network actors that it must include.
I dissagre that this proposal will be irrelevant in V1. We tried to avoid making assumptions about the distribution of the relays incomes (servicer / validator / DAO splits) and we focus solely on the Pocket Networks export product price, the relay.
In V0 and as well in V1, the only source of incomes that the protocol will have is the commercialization of relays. The relays being sold to the public will be paid in POKT at a price given by MaturityRelayCharge and the protocol will incur in costs for producing them given by MaturityRelayCost. This mechanic exceds V0 and is completely applicable in V1.
The research in V1 will have to deal (among other things) in how to distribute these rewards among the new actors.

@Dermot

Doesn’t fix inflation concerns

…

As I understand it, this argument can be summarized as:

Node runners are POKT holders and they will benefit from the increase of POKT price.

We disagree with this because:

• Makes assumptions about node runners POKT treasuries.
• Bounds success of supply side to a non-controlled variable such as POKT exchange rate.
• Works against the attraction of new builders (the cited point), since new node runners have no “bags”. If the intention is to only attract gateways or other types of builders, then the quote should be modified.

@Dermot

Can you explain why node runners wouldn’t care about the growth in the value of their POKT?

They do care about the value of the POKT token, but they clearly dont care about how many relays are run through the network. This is observed in the TG chats, where relays ATH are disregarded (with a large amount of trolling) by holders and node runners alike.

@Dermot

This proposal hinders the growth of our demand-side

…

This is indeed the main friction portion of this proposal, but we are trading what we think is a small amount of friction for a clear view of the mid/long-term operation of the network. As a gateway operator I would be more worried about the real cost of the relays than the actual one.
Anyway, the ones that should give their opinions on this subject are the current portal operations, PNI and Nodies.

@Dermot

Is POKT money or capital or both? And what should we optimise for right now?

…

I will answer this later in the main thread. The topic is indeed a long one, and the article you cite (and the larger one that is the base of its assumptions) is very interesting (contrary to our views tho).
(to everyone else trying to discuss the POKT token nature please refer there)