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 “de-highlighted” 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 Vitaly’s 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).
I’m not familiar with Tony Kim’s 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 - I’m 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.
We’ve 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.
Let’s take a break, and reconvene when we can understand PNI’s 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 they’ve 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, I’m 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 Art’s comments, I’d think:
SER changes to ‘2% reduction per month for 18 months’ 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 ‘less than 2% inflation’.
I’d still be in favour of funding Ramiro’s work on a model in parallel to PNI’s work and SER, but this might be outside of SER’s 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, it’s easy to forget that PNI is not all of Pocket and Arthur isn’t 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.
It’s important to emphasise that this is “an interim plan” but should help steer an “extremely weak” narrative around POKT’s 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 Art’s 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. Let’s give it some time for that while continuing to make progress.
Hey guys, something didn’t 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 doesn’t 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 PNI’s 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.
Let me take under advisement. I think as long as we get to single digit inflation by the end of the 18 months… will post on wednesday; busy w tax stuff today
My reckoning was (16.8*0.98)^18 gave around 8% by Summer 2024 - so used 2%.
Can those with more math skills than me show if I’m wrong or suggest the other solutions? Off the bat 4.3% monthly seems high, but if that’s the number taking us to ~8% in Summer 2024, will support.
Question: How do we integrate this with v1 and region/chain fluctuations to incentivise under represented areas? I assume all that can be done within the overarching headline emissions figure?
-690k per day is roughly 20700000 per month
-50% target is 10350000 per month
-4.2% reduction MOM OR 95.8% of the monthly numbers takes us to 50% (10350000 per month) in roughly 15/16 months
Yes, this is what I meant
Our good friend Vitaly on twitter. Will wait for others to chime in.
