Medium Pressure Capped & Stepped Supply Schedule

Deciding
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
1d
Attempts
0
Tally
1%Aye
99%Nay
Aye
187.55KDOT
Nay
19.05MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.00%
65.02KDOT
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

Saxemberg has voted NAY on the Polkadot referendum 1718 Medium Pressure Capped & Stepped Supply Schedule. Our observation: The undetermined revenue pot mechanics for staking is quite doubtful and shouldn't be included in the inflation proposals. Inclusion in the text is relevant.
This referendum is eligible for vote overrule:
https://voting.opensquare.io/space/the-sax-guild/proposal/QmXxMgoJ8zVXa35T67gZQccurvPih7wnKw91rz5bU4cUXA

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 one aye and two nay votes from eight available members, with two members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

Members expressed support for the medium pressure capped and stepped supply schedule as a balanced approach to reducing inflation while preserving supply stability, with some considering it the most sustainable option among alternatives. Others criticized the proposal as a superficial fix that failed to address persistent issues such as the legacy impact of past high inflation and the fundamental design of token value capture. Several voters remained hesitant, emphasizing the need for deeper economic expertise, further analysis, and caution regarding potential effects on network security and validator rewards. The debate centered on whether long-term fiscal responsibility could be achieved without more comprehensive economic reforms.

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

This is Barath Kanna, representing the PBA Alumni Voting DAO.

We have voted NAY on this referendum.

Our reasoning is that while we support the principle of capping and stepping down issuance, the Medium Pressure schedule (19% step) reduces rewards too aggressively. This creates a real risk of discouraging validator and nominator participation, which could undermine network security and overall engagement.

In contrast, the Hard Pressure schedule offers a more balanced and sustainable path: it maintains healthy staking incentives while still ensuring long-term scarcity. We believe this is the safer approach for Polkadot’s growth and stability.

For any enquiries, please contact alumni@polkadot.academy or reach me directly on Telegram: @Barathkanna2706.

Reply
Up
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
1d
Attempts
0
Tally
1%Aye
99%Nay
Aye
187.55KDOT
Nay
19.05MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.00%
65.02KDOT
Issuance
1.6BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Or do delegation here, check wiki.