Proposals for real solutions

1

we can copy Bitcoin model, not just in price.

Tokenomics is a new economic structure that has been adopted by the market, and is replacing the traditional economy.
Hopefully we are all aware of the inflationary problems with POKT. I will focus on solutions to help create a strategy. We need to cut costs: I have been in charge of several companies, and in my experience cutting costs never saved a company; it just delayed the problem. In my opinion the only solution for POKT’s tokenomic’s problem is to raise demand for the token.
The market currently does not trust investing in POKT. I have invited many friends to join the network and their comments are negative in regard to inflation. So even with ChicoCrypto and many others touting the advantages and potential of POKT, not many people are interested in buying because of the poor inflationary tokenomics.
Everyone being rewarded POKT continuously in an inflationary environment has created conditions similar to a Ponzi scheme. Every day new nodes exacerbate the problem…leading to the issuing of more tokens and new node growth. This leads to more POKT selling than the market can absorb.
So what we need, and which is the only solution, is to raise demand for POKT in the marketplace and to control inflation. We need to undertake a drastic campaign to help node runners achieve economic stability.
It does not matter if tokens are frozen or not. We must burn tokens to stop the bleeding. I suggest we burn 100 million POKT tokens or more from the Treasury. This will send a powerful signal to the market which will create interest and show the team’s dedication to controlling inflation. 100 million POKT must be burned in the next 6 months while we look for stability on Version 1.
We most also stop the current minting model. Minting must be a limited to a rate fixed by the DAO, and nodes share these profits based on service. Or a combination of these two would suffice.
I suggest that newer nodes need more POKT to stake versus older nodes. And every few months or annually this staking requirement should be increased incrementally higher and higher for newer nodes. Older nodes might be referred to as “Founders Nodes” and keep their current amount of required POKT to stake. For example:
Founder Nodes 15,000 POKT, New nodes 18, 000 POKT.
We should organize a launch for wPOKT with a staking program in Polygon. However, I do not think it is a good idea to just facilitate the passage of tokens; we need a deflationary process so when someone sends POKT to Polygon, we burn a percentage of their POKT during their movement to participate in the sales and liquidity pools. This will help node runners in having more options in the market and push POKT’s price higher. This would help create a new market and is a deflationary process and thus supportive of the price.
We should create staking on wPOKT on polygon and offer 2% monthly or 3% lower than what real nodes return. This creates an opportunity to get more interest from the market for buying real nodes and generates interest from non-technical users that want to join the network.
This structure can balance production and sales and will create a more balanced and healthy ecosystem.

We should also create POKT NFT’s and sell NFT’s pegged to 1 node that receive in Polygon, profits from the nodes less their costs.
We should also invest time and energy to explore additional avenues to generate profits. I am not a POKT insider so I cannot offer concrete ideas in this regard, but these avenues should be investigated
An aggressive campaign from the DAO and Team to permanently to communicate these ideas should also be implemented.

3 Likes
2

This is exactly what’s needed! They need you on the board. However they assured us that they have a professor of econ. LOLOLOLOL
Need to get this in front of them!! Basic economics of supply and demand.

3

photo_2022-05-16_15-59-50
photo_2022-05-16_15-59-50524×1280 66.5 KB

any real professional know, the only way to recover a value, is with an strategic plan that must offer burn and buyback in some cases.

4

i gues looking the graph will see, pokt will not recover and dragg until 5 cents or less. because there is no buyers.
if we dont take fast measssures about be atractive to the market, a plan to save cost, will not save anything.

this is a fact, not an opinion.
is how markets works.

some people say, is we cut cost by half we will be fine, but who say price is fixed??
price is not fixed.
market will do inmediate correction.
price will goes down if token is not atractive.

5

I would personally argue that a token burn or buyback is not creating value but rather a form of price manipulation creating the illusion of value/demand.

I have said in a previous thread why not just double the cost of a node to 30,000 POKT whilst keeping the rewards per day at roughly 50 POKT per node as it is currently. Seems like it would solve a lot of immediate problems in terms of the current lack of demand from dapps, over-provisioning of the network and high maintenance costs that are all contributing to heavy selling pressure. Yet to get a response from anyone on this yet. These forums are really dead at the moment. Feels like many have abandoned ship!

I think the team could also contract an economist on a consultancy/part-time basis until we can get the tokenomics of the project in a better spot than what it is currently. I think the growth phase was working as intended but we’ve not transitioned into the maturity phase as well as what we could have. Getting someone with a degree in this field could help with the next transitions of the project in a more timely manner.

6

this is a discussion so pointless.
blockahin is a new economic science under study.

our problem is not the cost, our problem is we dont have enough incomes to pay cost. so we can reduce cost and think we are saved, but is not truth because there no buyers interested in to buy because inflation.

So, we need to bring new investors, to solve that we need to solve the main problem becuase we dont havce people interested in our tokens, and that is inflation.

so, if we start a deflationaruy process we are sending a powerful message to the market and we can show a new structire for tokenomics more reasonable and it will be perfect.

this is a knoed blockchain experience, is not my idea only, all the people than understand tokenomics understand the value of burn tokens and start deflationary process.

is so weird this community avoid the only tooll that can save us.
if you take attention, you can see in price what market thinks.

graphics can be readed for professionals too.

1 Like
7

When you run a company you can do positive or negative actions.

Positive are market actions that moves forward.
Negative actions are decisions that will not improve project or bring users or more stability, are action to avoid damage or fix mistakes.

This days some guys talk extremely negative actions to figh this negative trends.

1.- get higher requirements for node runners in pokt.
This is a negative action, is not intended to create more users or bring more buyers to the ecosystem. His objective is be more efficient and save costs. That means project was not well designed at first, because this a big huge change. We fight to have lot of nodes, now we have we, will reduce 50%. That is a negative trend too. We are node holders, node are everyday less valuated until reach a ridiculous point where we lose 92% of our ATH.

I am agree improve efficiency and save cost is desireble, but that is a extremele bad signal for the market. And must be solved a lot before with other meassures.

What you are saying?
They change node requirements because was losing money? So? Is not decentralized? Can change your conditions just like that? That is like a new contract for me. Did lose 50% of their nodes? Nodes lose 90% of value ahd that is why change everything?

Market will see this like a negative action.
What i said and explain is, we need positive action to neutralize this critics and improve our image for the market.

If we just launch negative actions to save mobey, that imply project is not doing well, we will found even less buyers and all that fake idea that saving cost will cause a positive effect will vanish.

If you want to do is ok, but you need add positive actions to show a real planning.

Our real problem is inflation and wagmi is not good enough, stilll we produce scandalous amount of tokens that are just usefull to create more nodes and dilute node holders. So this is creating companies that have all nodes. This dilutes the value of token so small holders are losing their investment, when some are getting all the new minted tokens and raising their control of the project. Is like usa but worse. High inflation and highes unbalance with less than 10 holders that have over 95% of tokens.
The idea was everybody can have his own node.
The truth is 4-5 guys have all nodes because iss too hard implement and nodes need efficiency. And they get commission of every node and project is becoming terribke centralized.

So, tokenomics model creates a monster and that is the reason why market dont want this tokens, is not just the bear. Pokt is one of the worse results in this bear market, with big losses for node value and token.

What we need to do is solve the inflation and balance estructure. Provide value to nodes.
All new decisions are pushing to opposite side.

Be more efficient means rekt node value ahd token and all small holders will be ruined and this will not be a good signal again for the market.

Our only real solution would be solve inflation to convince to market we are fine, healthy and bring new users.

At the same time study a non so centralized structure and system.

I know most people here lie himself ahd dont want to read this.

But i accomplish my mission here explaining because i dont know if dont understand or dont want to understand.

This new meassures will push a lot of people out and the 4-5 guys with more token will have them all and all nodes.
Maybe, that is what they want.

Burn and start deflationary process is salvation for all of us.
Save cost is good but will be more usefull to just a few guys.

I expect listen in infracon something good for node holders and not just for 5 guys.

2 Likes
8

I agree a burn is needed. While it’s true burning doesn’t equate to “adding value” in the sense of increasing demand for nodes (and therefore creating revenue), it does solve (or mitigate) the supply side of the equation. Hyperinflation is the quickest way to destroy value (as history has shown time and time again) and getting it under control is a necessary requisite before any real value creation can be achieved.

1 Like
9

I’m curious - what level of burn would you suggest?

If it would be to mitigate the supply side of the equation, to what extent would this burn mitigate?