Reducing inflation - VOTE NAY

Wish For Change
8mos ago
52 Comments
Rejected
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up 1
Share
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation1d
Attempts
0
Tally
43.3%Aye
50.0%Threshold
56.7%Nay
Aye
70.77MDOT
Nay
92.83MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

Threshold

Support(1.41%)
19.99MDOT
Issuance
1.41BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Calls
Call
Metadata
Timeline4
Votes Bubble
Statistics
Comments

Hey Giotto,

I can agree with one of your underlying points, we need to keep watch on inflation. In this case there's focus on issuance but there's also the angle of disposal/burning of tokens and what is the overall net effect on inflation.

To echo some of the other responders and in my own words, there's just too many significant upcoming changes to make this determination right now.

Regards,
Will | Paradox

Reply
Up

I really like the 2.1 billion fixed supply as it immediately cuts inflation by half (1.4 billion x 10% = 140 million, is cut to 70 million, 10% x 700 million).

In Gavin Wood's recent interview he mentioned the Bitcoin fixed supply model as a possibility, "it provides a nice very shallow curve, going from the rewards that are happening at the moment, into a fixed final amount model", and "I do see a serious upside, which is that you've got fiscal certainty".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlByL1psSB8

And Gavin mentioned that Jam's final draft is likely to be ready by end of 2024, and perhaps will launch by summer 2025.

I also like the bitcoin vibe (2.1 billion), being that it is the most valuable and secure blockchain.

A correction to the 30 year projections by giottodf, the numbers should read M for millions not K for thousands.

One caveat is that I would like the fellowship to be able to increase the inflation if necessary, for the purpose to incentivize staking, as Polakadot's security is first priority.

Otherwise a big AYE for me

Reply
Up 1

Bring on Polkadot's first halving, and as Gavin Wood said, 'a serious upside' due to 'fiscal certainty'.

Reply
Up 1

The concept is well-conceived and straightforward to comprehend.

Reply
Up

I also agree that there should be a discussion about reducing inflation and the upgrade that allows to set the inflation parameter through governance is exactly what should trigger a proper evaluation of the inflation / staking parameters. As Al already pointed out, we should be mindful about the fact that Polkadot does derive a significant share of its economic security from rewards to validators (i.e., their future rewards). But, that does not mean that there is no room to lower it.

This also taps into the conversation about how much % of the inflation should be fixed to go to the Treasury and how we want to set the ideal staking rate in the absence of parachains.

To summarize, we should and will have a discussion about lowering inflation, but it should include all the factors listed above.

I am currently busy teaching at the PBA but I am planning to give some input on this topic soon which then hopefully triggers some discussion around it.

Reply
Up