On net zero issuance

This post is a stub intended to generate discussion on analyzing the pros and cons of net zero issuance.

Background reading includes:


Generally I agree more with Vlad Zamfir, and others, and would approach net zero issuance with caution, and not consider it a high priority compared to other features. However, one point for net zero issuance is that if issuance exists, then the coin/token with issuance will become devalued over time, relative to tokens without issuance. Encouraging a network effect / people buying due to artificial scarcity, isn’t a very compelling reason, IMO, as you can get a network effect in other ways and pumping the price doesn’t align well with the interests of the public and users, which any public blockchain should endeavour to serve. Network participants should also be rewarded the true value that they provide, which can be done with transaction fees rather than rewards, but increasing transaction fees is bad for user experience. OTOH, internalizing costs helps make them explicit, and prevents them from being inflated via centralized rent-seekers (which could be done with off-chain solutions as has been done with no fees with PeepEth), socialized, or passed onto someone else, by being implicit or externalized.

1 Like