I appreciate the focus on driving the monetization model for POKT, however there are a few things about this proposal and comments thereafter that I have questions about…
“This proposal aims to do this by adjusting 2 things:
- increase the multiple from 10x to 24x the average monthly cost of our competitors.
- recalibrate the way we calculate the multiple
– from cheapest cost of our competitors
– to the average of the 2 highest cost competitors”
Why is it a desire to target a USD price point for a relay? Seems to me it undermines the point of the token to abstract away fiat costs and lets the native token capture the value that the network provides and lets the market determine the value through price discovery to find the balance.
Relays should be priced and valued in POKT only.
Targeting a USD price range will inherently limit that value capture and will always require intervention while undermining the demand for POKT in the market.
From @poktblade
Do we have more data to prove QoS is up to par to our other providers? Outside of latency, what are the Portal’s SLAs that we are offering to customers?
These are pertinent questions that I haven’t really seen answered. Is the foundation able to provide metrics demonstrating the QoS or at least tracking it over time. Otherwise how is the portal going to be ‘sold’? Performance metrics are a must have.
Users will be able to pay with USD using a standard payment gateway. The monthly USD that comes in will be handed over to a 3rd party market maker who will market buy POKT. That POKT will then be held in a treasury account. After the user completes the 24 month payment cycle they will be awarded their accumulated POKT.
As mentioned in prior comments, we will be offering a monthly payment option in addition to requiring applications to purchase the entire stake upfront. This will be a pay-as-you-go plan, on a per relay basis. At the end of the month, users will be charged on a per-relay basis.”
Having a fiat payment processor for the gateway seems to once again completely undermine the whole point of the token. Where is the demand for POKT going to actually come from?
Relying on 3rd party market makers is extremely concerning, because they’ll just manipulate the market to their benefit regardless of the utility of the token or the protocol. This reeks of moral hazards including insider trading.
Not to mention this is a huge red flag for 3 letter agencies to target us. This should be avoided at all costs.
This really is the most confusing aspect of this proposal and plan. I just can’t support not allowing the actual market to evaluate and price the token without interventions. We need real demand, not a charade of demand. I would suggest offering the same kinds of payment plans, but without any fiat option. Force token usage at all times.
I caution against loss of the utility of the token in any measure, combined with “ROI targets” and posts that suggest the token is an investment vehicle in this current regulatory environment is extremely unwise.
Letting the open-market forces to adjust the value according to the level that is mutually beneficial to supporters of the network and the users. This proposal, as stated, seems to interrupt the process of letting the market determine what the value of POKT should be.
TL;DR Monetization of the portal is necessary, but the apparatus here seems to undermine the value of POKT to be derived from network utility and market forces.