Hard Pressure Capped & Stepped Supply Schedule

Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
1d
Attempts
0
Tally
78%Aye
22%Nay
Aye
19.78MDOT
Nay
5.57MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.57%
9.16MDOT
Issuance
1.6BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Or do delegation here, check wiki.
Call
Metadata
Timeline3
Votes Bubble
Curves
Statistics
Comments

Here we will update & answer any Fears, Uncertainties & Doubts expressed during Refs to Commit to long-term fiscal responsibility with a Capped & Stepped Supply schedule HERE.

Thank you for your thoughtful and productive discourse on the matter. ❤️

Reply
Up

Just out of curiosity, why we choose Mar. 14, 2026 for the start?
Only for the sake of pi?

Reply
Up 1

Does the $450M and $90M in network expenses here include the Treasury portion?

Reply
Up

Why can't the proposal be implemented immediately, but has to wait until March 14?

Edited

Reply
Up

Well reasoned, good for short term and long term. Would like to see it implemented along with Asset Hub migration, or before Xmas so we start off 2026 nicely.

https://polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/27350714-3

I tried putting the decision deposit but got an “Balances.LiquidityRestrictions” error. What did I miss?

Reply
Up

Placed it from another account =)

Reply
Up 1

If the price of your ponzi drops too low just adjust inflation. With parachains we can layer the ponzi. Ponzception. Don't concern yourself with making it viable as an actual product / service.

Reply
Up

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.

The Wish For Change track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received zero aye and three nay votes from eight available members, with three members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

Voters expressed mixed sentiments, with some abstaining while others opposed the proposal. One comment suggested that an economist should review the research before proceeding, whereas another noted that focusing solely on cutting supply oversimplified a complex tokenomics issue. A participant who abstained called for broader tokenholder input, and another raised concerns about the treatment of DOT accrued under earlier high-inflation policies, arguing that the proposal failed to address longstanding structural problems. One voter admitted uncertainty despite agreeing on the need to reduce inflation, while another critiqued the discussion quality, emphasizing that key economic reforms should originate from expert analysis and better attend to token value and utility.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate

📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate

Reply
Up