Tokenomic : Revenue-Linked Inflation

Revenue-Linked Inflation: A Sustainable Security Budget for the Cosmos Hub TL;DR Two objectives: • Link inflation to revenues — inflation should compensate for missing revenues, not be an arbitrary parameter • Open a door for off-chain revenues — allow ecosystem partners to contribute revenues on-chain, transparently, to validators and delegators The mechanism: • Define a target security budget (revenue per block needed to secure the network) • Fund this budget primarily through real revenues (tx fees, ecosystem contributions) • Use inflation only to fill the gap when revenues fall short • Result: inflation auto-adjusts based on actual ecosystem revenue This creates a path to zero inflation as the Hub matures, without compromising security. And it gives ecosystem partners a transparent way to share revenues with those who secure the network. The Problem with the Current Debate The community is discussing lowering inflation. But the conversation is backwards. Current approach: • “Inflation is too high, it dilutes holders” • “Let’s lower it to X%” • “Why X%? Why not Y%?” • No clear answer → political compromise → repeat in…

Excerpt (1199 of 11401 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

After reading this post, I really like several aspects of it. Paradigm shift, instead of asking how much inflation should we have?, we ask how much funding do we actually need to secure and grow the network?. This feels much more economically healthy and makes a lot of sense for me. Automatic adjustment, inflation being tied to actual revenue the more real network activity fees and ecosystem revenue streams, the less need to mint tokens. This could lead to deflationary periods that actually reward participants for using the network. Path to zero inflation, i really like that this creates a natural stabilization mechanism instead of just setting arbitrary percentages. In the best case, inflation could drop to zero, with atom demand driven by real network usage and revenue. That said, I do have some small concerns due to lack of clarity. Starting from defining revenue streams, which types of revenue count as valid, and how will they be verified on chain? Also security in low revenue periods, how will the network maintain a minimum level of security during long bear markets without excessive inflation? And last, community communication and education, the model is more complex than a…

Excerpt (1198 of 1470 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback! Really glad the core paradigm shift resonates. Let me address your concerns: -– **1. Which types of revenue count as valid, and how will they be verified on chain?** The answer is simple: only **whitelisted denoms** count, and the whitelist is controlled by governance. For example, governance could approve: ATOM, USDC, USDT. Anyone can then create a revenue stream using these denoms, as long as they meet a minimum amount (also set by governance, to prevent spam). There’s no off-chain verification of “who you are” or “where the money comes from”. The constraints are purely on-chain: - ✓ Whitelisted denom - ✓ Minimum amount - → Stream created, counts as revenue This keeps it permissionless while preventing spam. If someone wants to contribute $1M in USDC to the Hub’s security budget, we don’t need to verify their identity — we just accept the contribution. -– **2. Security in low revenue periods / long bear markets** This is exactly why the proposal includes an **inflation cap** as a safety bound. Here’s how it works in a bear market scenario: > **Bear market scenario:** > - Target: 1000 ATOM/block (what we’d…

Excerpt (1192 of 4569 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thanks for the detailed follow up and additional scenarios, this really helped clarify the mechanism, especially around whitelisted revenue, target vs cap dynamics, and also bear market behavior. The graceful degradation property is a strong design point. After thinking about it more, I want to highlight one more dimension which I think matters for adoption and value capture. Narrativization and external communication. Even if the mechanism is economically sound, if the broader market doesn’t clearly understand the security budget, revenue, inflation, burn and deflation cycle, the token may fail to capture value even if the model is technically correct. I think the market also needs a story it can easily digest, similar to how eth benefited from ultrasound money once the burn model was live. In fact, this is the first time since 2021 that I really feel constructively bullish on atom from a fundamentals perspective, because this model finally creates a coherent path toward real yield from ecosystem revenues, adaptive non ponzinomic inflation, potential zero inflation in mature states, and deflationary pressure during periods of high usage. If the hub can execute on both the…

Excerpt (1191 of 1794 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I like the idea.
In addition to curbing the inflation when possible, it would also have the other benefit of keeping the staking yield somewhat predictable (at least with a known minimum), which might be valuable in particular for institutional players that can guarantee a baseline revenue to their clients.

A drawback I can think of is that if an entity pledges for example $200k in ATOM or USDC over 12 months : the full amount is deposited into an account from which it will be streamed, making it idle capital for months while it could be put to better use in DeFi protocols.
This is more of an operational matter though, I suppose the entity could fund the streaming account on a weekly or monthly basis instead of the full amount at once if they deem it relevant.

Yes, you’re not wrong. The solution is to avoid spreading a large revenue over one year, but instead, for example, have 12 revenues over one month.

The downside is less visibility for delegators.