Design choices and changes on a working systems are two different worlds. POKT might not be a mature project but we are not in the design phase, people already invested into this. We need to thread carefully when choosing sensible parameters such as a MaxSupply. You can call this pre-proposal as you want, but as long as it requires a fixed value to calculate the RTTM, it will be a MaxSupply proposal, it is not WAGMI or FREN.
Also POKT is not Cardano, and it is not BTC, POKT is quite unique. It is irrelevant to compare their design choices to ours. What we can learn from other ecosystems is how to study and quantify things, but their solutions will never be our solutions.
I agree that it does not have it right now, but it was conceived to have one, and that collides with having a max supply IMO.
I would say the contrary, POKT model of emission and burn will be more complex than ETH after V1. Having an approachable model will be fundamental.
We talk about MaxSupply because it is rooted in the proposed calculation of the inflation rate. Without it the proposal should be changed, specifically the calculation of the RTTM.
Iâm not against inflation reduction controls or taking actions swiftly while we work on a better model, but what I do not want a MaxSupply to slip into the ecosystem. If the community vote on this pre-proposal it should know that they are voting for a MaxSupply.
Guys, I am extremely nervous that we will hit roadblocks causing delays in quest for perfection, and if we rely on just that. From start to finish, this is a much more complex project in every way possible with several dependencies. Also could hit budgetary and resource issues (negotiations), causing more delays.
And like I said, I am on the side of the community and market sentiments when I see POKTâs current inflation and any other respectable projectâs (picked randomly).
No @RawthiL , we are not expecting change in a week but that shouldnât take away the urgency and that we need to give the market some positive catalyst and confidence in the short-term. I also agree with your long term thesis btw.
I have to contradict myself again- Can we take a two tier approach instead?
Start with simple but aggressive and immediate month on month inflation reduction, that gets substituted by the more complex long term model that @RawthiL is suggesting, whenever itâs ready.
There are several benefits to this (not conclusive):
a) Set a longer timeline for the complex model to do it absolutely right, with as many iterations as needed
b) Market gets a catalyst immediately and doesnât have to wait; once the longer term model gets deployed, that gives a bigger boost to the narrative
c) Less resistance across the board including from the community
@RawthiL , you are certainly the expert here, but I hope we are not exaggerating this with imaginary possibilities for the POKT token such as those from Tony Kim. I will be very excited but I am interested in what we know today as far as tokenomics goes- 690k POKT/day with ABR deployed (which seems straightforward). What other complexities are destined after V1? I have not heard of an argument until now that POKT tokenomics has to change because of V1/post V1. Whatever we are discussing today stemmed just from concerns of extraordinarily high inflation.
It was not my original intention to make the max value the highlight - it was rather a byproduct . Ensuing discussions morphed it to become more and more highlighted. It can be âde-highlightedâ if that helps?
Further, I mentioned that there are two methodologies by which the sustainable, predictable reduction in emission can take place. (1) each month PNF reduce the daily emission target by x%. (2) each month PNF sets daily emission target to x% of the headroom between current value of supply and Y supply. I outlined why I thought method 2 was superior to method 1 in terms of self-correcting differences between actuals and target.
So let me ask a question: Do we want to revert to method 1, even if it is slightly inferior to method 2 simply to avoid the naming of the asymptote value Y? I suppose we could - and am willing to if that is what it takes to get sensible emission reduction to move forward,
Or do you want an expiration date to the reductions? E.g., set in motion the monthly reductions for the next 18 months or until V1+6months or whatever to enforce the revisiting of Vitalyâs approach and to prevent any narrative from developing around POKT having a max supply?
On a separate note, let me ask @caesar, @Cryptocorn et al your thoughts on 2.0% monthly reduction (see Table 1 for corresponding period to cut inflation in half etc) as a middle ground between 1.4% and 4.2%. Without strong justification, my gut sense is that 4.2% monthly reduction is too aggressive to be maintained long term.
Last, seeing that the cadence for PNF to update RTTM is being changed from monthly to weekly, would it be advisable to change the text of this proposal to apply the reductions to target daily emission on a weekly basis rather than monthly basis (e.g., 0.5% weekly reduction rather than 2.0% monthly reduction).
Iâm not familiar with Tony Kimâs expectations. I was simply talking of the expected use of the POKT token, stake and burn from node and apps respectively.
Regarding the changes in V1, I was referring to the appearance of new actors in the system: the fishermen and portals. These will be new sources of POKT and they will have their own costs and revenues. I did not meant to say that tokenomics has to change in V1.
Hi @Cryptocorn@msa6867@RawthiL , given this update from Arthur/PNI, I will withdraw my volunteering time on this project and hope that the future course is far superior to my limited capacity.
All - Iâm thinking to pause for a few days to see what Arthur has up his sleeve in terms of his alternate RTTM proposal.
In the meantime:
@RawthiL - can you please provide feedback on the questions I asked yesterday re reverting to method one that is straight monthly reduction without reference to a max and/or setting a definite instead of indefinite period to the monthly reductions so as to not be able to claim a max supply.
Weâve certainly been sent a bit of a curve ball from Arthur on inflation reduction plans.
Ideally we would like to get an understanding of their proposal as quickly as possible, to see if we would like to support it, or continue with our above work and plans.
Letâs take a break, and reconvene when we can understand PNIâs plan.
I thought 2% reduction per month for 18months while funding Ramiro to build a model was a pretty good plan, maybe we can revisit when we know more.
Thanks @ethen . I appreciate the sentiment. To clarify, the DAO declined to hire me so this is all just volunteer time from a community member, though I do hope there is some community support for reimbursement to folks such as myself and @RawthiL and @Cryptocorn who contribute at a level other than coding.
To your point, however, I disagree. I think it is important to hear out what @ArtSabintsev is proposing. My best guess is that they are still a couple weeks out from having a target value solidified.
So my tag to @ArtSabintsev would be to get the framework of your approach into the public forum asap (ie.,. by early next week) with best-guess ballpark range of target value without worrying that the actual proposed value is not yet solidified. That way we can start debating the framework and ballpark range and doing a pro/con comparison of the two approaches - and possibly finding a synergy between the two.
Well my point was theyâve paid you 300k pokt to date and likely more to come. And for sure Ramiro and Cryptocorn need to get paid out as well.
I never said it was not important to get feedback from PNI. Of course they should chime in. This proposal is 6 weeks old, they should have been here weeks ago. I would love to hear what they think.
Most people should stay out of it. Yes its ok to give feedback and input, but when it comes down to it, there will be 3-5 people making the ultimate decision on where this goes. Maybe a few more. We absolutely do not need more cooks in the kitchen considering the progress you and the team have made on this in the past 8 months.
That was my main concern with the proposal. If the proposal is modified to remove the cap or it is given a finite (and relatively short) time of application, the MaxSupply narrative wont be a problem.
While it is a little surprising, it is nice to have a 3rd party proposing an inflation control.
Regarding the model creation, Iâm talking with the rest of the POKTscan team to see how could we implement that and how much it would take (milestones and so on). I expect to have a draft that we could discuss over after the next session with profish.
In private conversations, @ArtSabintsev has encouraged us to move forward with SER and not let the research they are doing derail SER.
If they come up with a proposal is a few weeks or month or whatever ,the community always has an option to vote to supersede an existing methodology with a new one. Further it is not certain, in my opinion, that the ideas they have been pursuing will make it past the internal review staged, nor, even if it does, will be favorably received by the community. That drastic of a cut to rewards may be a hard sell.
Consequently I will work to incorporate the feedback given thus far into SER early next wee (as I have other obligations this weekend) and then hopefully move to proposal stage and then to vote in fairly short order thereafter.
@MSA can straddle both camps so there is hopefully not too much of a clash between ideas.
Given Artâs comments, Iâd think:
SER changes to â2% reduction per month for 18 monthsâ as a middle ground that should continue to lower inflation without causing serious 2nd order effects. This would get us to ~8% inflation by my reckoning in summer '24.
No fixed supply for now, and changing our concept of fixed supply to be âless than 2% inflationâ.
Iâd still be in favour of funding Ramiroâs work on a model in parallel to PNIâs work and SER, but this might be outside of SERâs scope, will need another proposal.
After being closely involved in the recent rounds of emission reduction/tokenomics discussions in TG, forum, 1x1 and on calls, in hindsight maybe it was a knee-jerk reaction to be the first one to pullback post PNI announcement. At that time the abrupt announcement lacking acknowledgement for an ongoing pre-proposal in the community appeared to supersede the ongoing one. Therefore giving anymore personal time to this initiative seemed unworthy.
Moreover, itâs easy to forget that PNI is not all of Pocket and Arthur isnât the COO of Pocket but of PNI, one of the contractors. And all parties are welcome to put forward their proposals and plans for the protocol.
Seems reasonable to me and I believe to @Cryptocorn too.
Makes sense to me and more aligned with ACCURATE.
I would state the two-tier approach ad nauseam; it appears that @Cryptocorn and @msa6867 are in agreement, reading the notes that followed.
The reduction plan is simple and unsophisticated. Such simple inflation reduction plans are not uncommon including in protocols such as SOLANA.
Itâs important to emphasise that this is âan interim planâ but should help steer an âextremely weakâ narrative around POKTâs inflation in the right direction without any visible collateral damage, while we wait for the more robust models to replace it.
I am in agreement with @Cryptocorn that participation from @RawthiL and team should also be encouraged to build the long term model SER will get replaced by. But that should be a separate proposal.
I think we are all agreed on the numbers then to take a simplified SER to proposal stage, support a Ramiro proposal to develop a more sophisticated model, and wait for Artâs proposal to debate modifying from SER to something new.
If the proposal inflation formula is modified to avoid the generation of a maximum supply (either by hard/coding a value or by asymptotic behavior), then I will have no problem with it. I will wait until then to continue this discussion.
Yea, we should table the maximum supply for now. We just got our shit together on this inflation issue. Letâs give it some time for that while continuing to make progress.
Hey guys, something didnât sound right and therefore I scrolled up and checked @msa6867 's Table 1 again.
2% reduction per month cuts inflation by half in 2.9 yrs- 8.4% in 2.9 years? Does this sound effective enough to you to move any needle? Honestly, it doesnât to me at all.
And 4.2% will cut it by half in 1.3 yrs, which is what you @Cryptocorn thought is good enough, and I agree with that timeline.
And that should be sufficient time for PNIâs and/or @RawthiL 's model to take over.
Even though it is higher than where most top projects are at today, 8.4% in 1.3 years just sounds reasonable,
Counter arguments?
Sorry for going backwards, thought it was important.
