fully support this proposal and yes 20% inflation still high and you got guys who wants to keep current inflation, this just shows how nerds these folks are, not excited for the project but just for their beneficial.
1 Like
ideally i think we need to reduce inflation to 18% and increase it from there depends how the network is running request Relays per day
Reduce to 20% immediately or like suggested in the proposal. Implement ABR and Reduce further next year at the latest. I think all the arguments have been brought up before. Every day of 50 pct inflation is suicide
2 Likes
at the current stage I admire we would need 50 pct inflation at current stage with got to reduce it and from there we can increase it when there is demand
1 Like
I am in favor of an immediate decrease to 20% (would even go for more, imo) once PIP-22 and/or LeanPOKT is released to the masses.
1 Like
What’s the reasoning behind this choice? Why have the increase be compounding for the remainder of 2022 then linear from 2023 onwards? You’re just creating more inflation in 2022.
Edit to add:
The original WAGMI did not re-baseline, we always worked from the original supply snapshotted at the time of the WAGMI proposal passing. As such, re-baselining for the September 1st change to a 35% target actually increases inflation relative to the current 50% target (which is anchored against the original supply).
Different RelaysToTokensMultiplier values, assuming 30-day trailing avg relays of 944.5M (which was used for the latest 50% adjustment that resulted in a RTTM value of 1371):
- Targeting 35% using original supply of ~945M: 959
- Re-baselining to target 35% using current supply of ~1.36B: 1381
If we opt to re-baseline, the next WAGMI “reduction” will increase RTTM from 1371 to 1381 (avg relays held equal). If we opt to continue using the original supply at the time of WAGMI passing, the next WAGMI reduction will decrease RTTM from 1371 to 959 (avg relays held equal), which corresponds with what we would expect to happen reducing from 50 → 35 (1371*(35/50)=959.7).
1 Like
The following thoughts are my own and do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of @cryptocorn or @adam.
The reasoning was to bring clarity. and transparency. and fix an ambiguity in the original WAGMI proposal that has led to an incorrect perception of present inflation rate. The original PUP-13 was ambiguous in regard to baseline. Upon rereading PUP-13 I discovered that you had inserted a comment on Feb 28 stating that it was the intention of the Foundation to baseline POKT supply as of the time of PUP-13 passing and hold it constant for the duration of the PUP-13 changes. That brought the necessary clarity to resolve the ambiguity but frankly such clarity needs to be in the body of a proposal and not buried in the comments section. I confess that I missed that nuance and have been operating under a different assumption. In the same spirit of your comment of Feb 28 in which baseline was naturally set to the value at the time of passing the proposal, a baseline would naturally be reset at the time of the passing of a follow-on proposal.
Right now, according to how the Foundation has interpreted PUP-13, the actual annualized inflation rate for POKT sits at just under 35%, not at 50%. If no follow on action is taken to PUP-13, then the inflation rate in subsequent years will be as follows (even less to negative when ABR turns on):
2023: 31.1%
2024: 23.7%
2025: 19.2%
All of this ought to have been spelled out explicitly in the original WAGMI proposals. While it may have made no difference in the actual tokenomics (the same number of tokens are minted no matter what you call the “inflation” rate), this makes a large difference in the outside world where “perception is reality”. How many potential investors were scared off by the “50%” inflation rate for Pocket that gets repeated as a mantra. That misperception alone may have cost downward pressure on the market valuation of POKT leading to higher percentage of node runner rewards being sold to cover infra costs. All because of a misperception!
That being said, it is not our intention to go backwards on TMMR values. we will either reduce the entire set of 35-29-24-20 numbers downward to reflect the re-baselining, or else we will reformulate the construct to be one of setting a target average monthly mint rate rather than a target “inflation”, since this, at its core, is what the original WAGMI always was according to how it has been interpreted.
1 Like
Where does this assertion come from? If you’re annualizing the inflation rate from the date of the proposal passing, then the inflation rate actually sits somewhere above 50%, since we’ve gradually worked our way down monthly to 50% from 100%.
If the standard practice when we talk about annualized inflation rate is to calculate it from today’s date, then I’m not opposed to us updating to follow that practice, but then why does PUP-22 switch to a fixed baseline as of Jan 1st 2023? Does that not suggest that PUP-22’s definition of target “inflation” is also inconsistent?
You’ve alluded to this in your response but I would suggest either of two paths forward:
- Define target inflation as an annualized metric anchored around a fixed baseline from the beginning of each year. Feb 28th for the original WAGMI, since that’s when the proposal passed, Jan 1st 2023 when we get to the 20% target. Keep the target numbers as they are.
- Update target inflation to mean from the date of the RTTM value being updated. Continue re-baselining every time we update the parameter, including from Jan 2023 onwards. Reduce the entire set of numbers to reflect that re-baselining means 35% equates to current mint rate. Open question: are we comfortable settling at 20% now that this will compound on itself?
1 Like
we will rework to make self-consistent. I think the number gets reworked to around 25% down to 15% in the latter option. Let us put our heads together and then revise
Revisions are complete. Barring major new issues brought up in comments, plan is to move to vote tomorrow
1 Like
This proposal has passed with 18 approvals and 1 rejection. Snapshot
The first adjustment will be executed tomorrow, Sep 1st.
1 Like
The number of nodes goal has been reached (bootstrapping). We should decrease inflation over time. I believe that a maximum inflation of 25% should urgently be implemented, and decrease by 10% every 6 months or 1 year.
Inflation has caused the price to drop much more than other worthless tokens.
The selling pressure is high because of the pools that have to pay the nodes and the reward that is sold as soon as it is received.
The solution would be to reduce the pressure more and more because of the pools and the inflationary reward.
Hey @Jerry , Hey @hadevil - welcome to the party!!.. but thie ship actually sailed a while ago. FREN has passed and is already implemented. Inflation has already been reduced to ~ 26% and the wheels have been set in motion to reduce to 17% by the end of the year. Talk about seeing your wishes come true with a wave of the wand! lol
1 Like
My reply got approved after a few weeks. I, in fact, voted for FREN to pass .
1 Like
Just came across this gem of a comment. I’ve been saying something similar for a while now. I’d love to see/read what @kjenkins has been working on. I believe this is the most pragmatic way to solve the issue, and should be possible with enough node runners participating.
1 Like
I’d like to discuss moving to a weekly update of the RTTM from the current trialing 30days.
Emissions are up 50% from the target and there are 13 days to go in this month where they could go up even more (seemingly likely).
My thoughts are that if we have a target, we should try to hit it and stay consistent.
If relays continue to grow as we hope, we’ll always be off target, sometimes by considerable amounts if we continue to use trailing 30 days as an indicator. Moving to weekly at least narrows the range we can (usually over) perform.
Inviting my co-authors @msa6867 and @adam to contribute their thoughts.
I’m not against a reworking of emissions similar to how Blade is suggesting. However, I’d like to see the shape of the ecosystem into end of Jan/Feb, with target reduction of daily emissions fully matured and a weekly update to keep RTTM.
My gut feel is that at that point we will be in a pretty good place to understand where rewards need to be headed, either further tweaks to FREN or a system as Blade mentions, or a reduction of RTTM continuously automated per block produced (Vitaly B suggestion).
I am agnostic to weekly vs monthly. As I pointed out in the forum, there is precedence in the April time frame for PNF to update as often as it felt necessary to keep emission inline with WAGMI target; so I think at PNF discretion it can do so again without need of a DAO vote. As I also pointed out, the boost while in active relay growth is good, IMO, and balances out in opposite direction if rewards trail off, as they did over the summer.
It would be good if @kjenkins could share here a more complete version of his thoughts on the cost+ model or whatever it has morphed into…
1 Like