INFLATION AND TOKENOMICS OF DOT : A COMPARATION WITH ATOM FOR EXPLAIN MY PURPOSE

Hello all,

I am writing to you because of my concerns about the future valuation of the project due to its tokenomics being too high compared to other similar projects such as Atom Cosmos.

1.5B against 390 million ATOM for an inflation that was between 7 and 20% about a year ago to 10% now for ATOM.

For polkadot we went from 10% to soon with 3 distinct proposals of which proposal three seems the most appreciated although there is a lot of opposition.

This comparison aims to show that the major problem with its valuation is more due to its tokenomics.

The difference is that Atom is to be held for airdrops and staking but has no use on projects because it is sovereign. Atom has no more use than that while projects must use dot for parachains and soon Coretime.

Still comparing dot to a supply 3.85 times higher than Atom.

Although the latter has recently suffered a significant drop in its price by capitulation, its rebounds in terms of price price in percentage increase are much more important because of this.
Since having a supply 3.85 times less important than that of Dot currently.

So even with 8% inflation instead of 10%, we still add 120 million additional Dots just for next year, and this additional supply will be added to the 1.5 B for a cumulative additivity of this supply in the calculation of inflation in year two from the result of the calculation of inflation added in year 1 of issue at 8% (1.6 billion * 0.08 = 128 million) or 8 million more Dots in year 2 than in year 1 with the same inflation rate of 8% by compound additivity effect.

This is huge given the current supply or perspective a downward value increase, notwithstanding even the bull market effect.

Namely, completely review the tokenomics by redeeminate to 150 million or 15 million supply for the DOT, which would more easily favor the recent decision about inflation at 8% especially if a decrease in it is automatically planned over time if proposal three is retained by the vote

We do not operate a burn, therefore no variation in value or erasure like erasing debts in the real world because who says debt says credit and loan. We would erase the debt of some to also erase the loan which, perhaps, is carried out for the creation of wealth such as the purchase of real estate or reused to guarantee other assets as collateral. We are talking about debt entanglement.

Here the erasure of debt, because of the current credits whose growth or future value to be expected is based on this mechanism and has a major importance. All those in favor do not understand how the debt and credit system works.

So the redenomination does not affect the value and the monetary outstandings related to the Dot in any way.

In addition, the upside outlook would naturally improve because buying an asset at 150 million or 15 million is rarer and more valuable than an asset with 1.5 trillion.

This does not solve the problem of inflation being too high for spending needs rather than security. We can lower it to 5% without endangering the network.

Only whales and large investors and some validators themselves would be disadvantaged, because Dot is a security yield ken for these people. Maybe the smallest ones.

But then how do the validators of the networks do it where inflation is at 6% on Solana and has been revised upwards by the complaints of the validators. Knowing that the average validator bracket is subsidized by the foundation.

How validators melt with 4% inflation on polygon and soon 2. Let's be serious they eat well and are often attached to companies staking on different blockchains their business: Figment, Chorus One, Steakhouse ... (Not specific to Dot here)

It's all for me, waiting come back or not!