discussion about inflation and even a little more

Here just a little message to say that it is necessary to reduce the inflation of the Dot, particularly once the effects have fallen the marketing effect and corporate reorganization in this new agile model in order to find what appears to be close to the balance.

However, putting a fixed supply is not a solution, because everything here is a resource dependent on a certain influx of demand for block space rental.

We can never really know statistically exactly which and the nombers of companies will be interested in the future of those who will stay or leave or even those who will replace them, the goal is agility, and agility is by nature not fixed.

In short, there will always be a non-zero fluctuation in demand. So, fixing the supply is not the solution.

On the other hand, initiated a temporary limitation regularly subject to discussion in order, objectively, and after a certain period of time to report on this effective request, as well as to relate the discussions taking place internally on possible potential partnerships which could attest to an upward or even downward trend in demand would make it possible to regulate this inflation, up to a certain more sustainable equilibrium.

So having regular discussions on this subject with a view, ultimately, to obtaining a certain stabilization of it seems to me the best. Here foresee several potential adjustments following observation of supply and demand in relation to Agile Coretime.

The treasury is not a problem here since if it only represents 1 to 3% of it, this would therefore make it possible to create Dot to finance interesting proposals but which, nevertheless, should be subject to a certain thematic ordering and feasibility as well as some control here.

In my opinion, lowering inflation to 7% in Staking, more 1 to 3% for the treasury (10%), seems to me to be a correct basis for begin and will can eventually change that if needed (make calculations that I have not done here for the most professional in the matter). But 8 and 2% seems fair to me. Much more than many projects of this magnitude currently.

Here, I'm going to be more personal, so just take this as an idea, wacky, fanciful or baseless if you want, and nothing else. So take this as a thought experiment.

Knowing that I am doing this without taking into consideration the technological correlation metrics of feasibility nor the protocol interactions that may come into play.

From my personal point of view, I also have an interest in Dot as a stable backing asset or security collateral for IBTC. Which would allow the network, the Polkadot blockchain, if it becomes the best for the Challenge on BTC, to have the institutional appeal which is inevitable today and even more in the future. Basically an institutional safe, but via blockchain.

An institutional Dao KYC for all that relates to important decisions on the movement of funds, companies or institutions linked to BTC here.

But we could double the Dao with funds allocated to a more individual origin for individuals and not connected, the same for the decisions therefore.

In this case however, a large portion of the treasury funds would become this Dao and inflation should not exceed 5% and even less in a very long term as BTC stabilizes and truly becomes a less volatile store of value.

Associated yields could also come from various DEFI products to be invented or defined, and parts of which could return to the Dao here. as well as are underlying, since the governance of polkadot would be integrated naturally.

It's a kind of central bank monetary system whose resource currency is the Dot here.

And as BTC just like gold are speculated and volatile assets at different respective scales, it is rather an economic interest supporting the prospects of future technological development of the DOT by anchoring it by absorption and therefore, retention at a significant portion of BTC.