Recap of the 8 ideas from the Tokenomics RFP

Greetings community, Over the last 9 months, a variety of research has been done across multiple organizations ( i.e. Binary Builders, Blockworks Research, RMIT University ) on potential tokenomic & decentralization tooling that can help improve the state of the Cosmos Hub. Those researches were commissioned by AADAO as part of the Tokenomics & Governance RFP . This post will help simplify & outline for the community a variety of recommendations that have been made from the research. This post also serves as a summary location that aggregates all of the collective research thus far completed. The original goals of the research were as follows: • Create better long-term alignment with the top developers in the ecosystem • Bring value to the ATOM token by aligning it with the growth of not only the AEZ but the Interchain as a whole • Develop smarter budget allocation strategies to ensure the Hub’s influence grows despite future boom and bust cycles • Establish a governance framework that enables smaller working groups to responsibly and effectively execute on behalf of the wider community • Offer insight into the economics behind Replicated Security with suggestions on…

Excerpt (1196 of 13802 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Have been curious what the hold-up has been on getting some of these on-chain or advancing beyond prototype stage. Tokenomics/monetary dynamics have always been a hot topic for Atom. ATOMAcceleratorDAO: The research also recommends that the Cosmos Hub ossify its issuance schedule in a way that acknowledges the Cosmos Hub’s desire to solidify its positioning as sound Interchain Capital. Personally, I like this approach. It’s much easier to budget for anything when there’s a known emissions schedule, and the correlation between emissions and bonded ratio seems to be pretty weak- according to the data, at least. ATOMAcceleratorDAO: • Vote Power Tax For this, I believe it’s a nice middle-ground and worth a try. The validator set is sticky at the top end, and reducing the effects on those who actually have skin in the game is a better approach than simply taxing all of them. This one could be contentious, but I’d like to see this pursued and conversations with validators would be needed. ATOMAcceleratorDAO: • Dynamic Community Pool Tax This one’s probably more complicated than it needs to be. The Hub now has a sizeable war…

Excerpt (1198 of 1713 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you for compiling all the tokenomics propositions into a single, comprehensive summary. With various entities, teams, and individuals coordinating research from different angles, having a complete overview is crucial to grasping the big picture. Quick Note : We welcome these reforms with excitement, but there is one important caveat. It is evident that the Hub has learned from past proposals that attempted to pass “bundled” reforms. Therefore, we hope to see this complex reform process refined and rolled out over multiple quarters, with each part subjected to individual on-chain votes to allow the community to vote on each aspect independently. Gathering as much feedback as possible before proceeding is also essential. A second important takeaway from recent tokenomics reform relates to the inflation modification fiasco. We hope lessons have been learned from this painful experience. The key takeaway is that tokenomics reforms have many interdependencies among the parameters we seek to adjust, necessitating a global perspective rather than addressing them piecemeal. Assuming we can’t bundle them in a single proposal, it is clear that ordering them correctly is of…

Excerpt (1195 of 6263 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Surprising lack of discussion on this, to be honest.

What’s next?

I think the community is waiting since a long time for all those features now. Major discussion will take place on each individual proposals.

I’m completely on par with Govmos reply.

Love the suggested ordering by @Govmos, though I personally am in favor of DRIP first - regardless of changes to inflation and taxes that “refill” the Community Pool, the way I see it, DRIP allows the Community Pool to not get drained with lumpsum payments.

DRIP allows for scheduled payment releases - with gov retaining the ability to stop streaming payments should something go wrong (e.g. when we had to clawback the Notional vesting account’s funds a few months ago, we technically did a hard fork - executing the clawback via a software upgrade)

To both @tknox35 & @Tagu - @ATOMAcceleratorDAO’s role was to commission and present these research into tokenomics of the Cosmos Hub to the community. They are effectively presented without any opinion from us.

In the ideal world, we’re hoping for the champions in the community to organize around these - have in-depth discussions - and then put them onchain once there is some consensus.

Wen ATOM champion?

‘What do we want?’
‘More decentralisation and community lead decision making’
‘When do we want it?’
‘When a core contributor proposes it’

So, where do we go from here?
In my view a lot of good discussion has really taken place. Some of this is surely ready to go on chain. If anyone is looking to move this forward then please hit me up and I will offer such help as you need and I can provide.

I’m down to help grassroots some of this if others aren’t stepping up. Our earnings get taxed to pay for this, and i’m not someone who likes to get no value for my money.

Travis⚛ (@tk_cosmobera) on X

maybe we should call it something else

Is everybody aware that there is already a module named drip?

juno/x/drip at main · CosmosContracts/juno

Open Source Platform for Interoperable Smart Contracts - CosmosContracts/juno

Can we please name this thing that we’re describing here anything other than that?

Juno to hub is not a good flow.

Bad flow.

Very bad flow.

nonetheless it sounds cool!

Think that the thinking behind this is accurate and that this could be an interesting way doing funding in the future.

In regards to the inflation reforms I think we should start creating, modeling and presenting different scenarios. We could go for something like : scenario 1: follow Blockwork’s research proposition, scenario 2 keep current formula but decrease inflation to a minimum, scenario 3: adding/removing different metrics of the current formula and see what happened with a complete different mechanism. Call it round 1 , then proceed to a second round later on with 2 or 3 new scenarios taking feedback from round 1. Govmos has created a tool that allows modeling so I think we should expose to the community those scenarios, taking account not just one parameters but all, modeling on the next 10 years to see what each scenario does. It would be way more easy for us, regular people, to create an opinion on such matter if you guys give us the full picture and projection with a graph…etc This is in complete opposition to the last tentative to change inflation, one being accepted (inflation to 10% max) and one rejected (min inflation to 0%) but none of them really cover the full picture and I feel people voted on an idea, or concept without even knowing what the change will do long…

Excerpt (1198 of 1438 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗