AEZ: Atom Tokenomics Improvement, Fee parameter change

Hello I am an Atom and Cosmos eco holder since a few years.

I have a simple idea to improve Atom AEZ tokenomics:

1-Change consumer chain fee from native consumer chain token to Atom token.

2-Burn mechanism for the Atom tokens bougth by consumer chains to pay for the AEZ service.

Those two simple changes will put all the consumer chains dust, every Atom staker is currently receiving, to work towards price appreciation and Inflation reduction of the Atom token, without touching current staking rewards, benefiting price appreciation and giving Atom token a strong renewed position of strenght within the Cosmos ecosystem.

I think it is a great Idea, hence I would like to hear your toughts on this and if it would be feasible to implement before writing a proposal.

Thank you.

There is a cold start problem. If a chains starts without VC money, then it will be difficult to purchase ATOM to pay for services. So a better idea will be to have a transition period:

• period1 - onboarding, low fees, mainly paid in the native currency
• period2 - fees are moving from the chain native token to ATOM
• period3 - economic settlement, fees paid ATOM or combination of ATOM and the chain native currency

We could implement atom as the default coin for IBC transfers?

I read other explanations and found something strange. The IBC transfer fee universal token seems to be determined by the local chain rather than controlled by the atom hub. therefore invalid
The economics are really not that good. If Atom stagnates for a long time, it will also affect the release of pledges and cause security problems.

Few couple of months ago, we initiated a discussion around that topic to spur research and community discussion around the ICS rewards and the potential to update the current model. [POLL] Should we consider redirecting ICS rewards? Proposal Ideas We don’t mean to undermine the immense complexities involved in changing the whole economics behind the ICS reward distribution. Currently these rewards are distributed to the stakers, leaving most holders with a lot of dust tokens in their wallets. This liquidity ends up being heavily fragmented and mostly “lost in the void”. Regarding the enormous amount of work this would take to gather reliable data and build a model to guide a governance debate on this subject, we thought it would be wiser … Regarding the early feedback we gathered in this initial sentiment post, we will initiate a broader debate on potential solutions and practical implementations that can be considered for future ICS rewards. But we also decided it would be appropriate to wait until the release of the PSS (partial set security) to have the full picture of the Shared Security offering for the Hub. When the right time comes, we encourage you…

Excerpt (1197 of 1356 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗