Are inflationary rewards too high? Are we paying too much for staking-based network security?

Is our goal for the Cosmos Hub still to attract 67% of the ATOM supply to stake? If our goal is still 67%, we have overshot that. I capture stats on the 20th of each month, and we have been above our target since July 20, 2019. What this tells me is that even though inflationary staking rewards are at their lowest possible rate, it’s still more than enough to meet our staking goal. 1.4M new ATOMs created each month. Are we paying too much for network security? Right now we are minting new ATOMs, increasing the supply, and doing that to fund staking-based network security. Around 1.4M new ATOMs are created each month. Why are minting so many? Since the rate of inflationary rewards has bottomed and we’re holding steady at 72% of the supply staking, it makes me think that we could have a smaller rate of staking rewards and still meet our 67% staking target. Who benefits from excessive security spending? Validators and stakers get 98% of the inflationary rewards. Who decides how these parameters are changed? Also validators and stakers, and particularly those willing to hold ATOMs the longest. Why would the majority of voting power agree to a smaller rate of rewards?…

Excerpt (1191 of 2330 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I will add similar thoughts, alas, in a slightly different key, but I think they complement each other. Sorry if I went off track here. Another good question is how to sustain a pool that isn’t (a) a pot of money which goes solely to network security, (b) a pool that isn’t solely a build up of inflationary result and has long term prosperity value. Let me explain: A: If you invest everything in the locks and the doors of a house, so no one can break in, eventually it will either fall down because the foundation is wrong, the roof is rotter, etc. What I mean is that the community pool must be valuable not just for security, but for all other things too. It must be destined for the development of the ecosystem and not just security (I am NOT saying that security should be ignored, on the contrary, it is one of the most important things) B: A pot of money that is build up entirely from inflation rewards has very little value in comparison to a pot of money that is build up of different things, investment, rewards, etc. The idea is to reach a sustainable flow of income that can support Cosmos as an ecosystem. Otherwise how is this any different from Q.E. (ok, this is a bit of an…

Excerpt (1199 of 1668 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thanks for bringing this topic up. A few thoughts from my side: 1. Paying for security I think from a game theoretic perspective, it’s hardly necessary to have 67% of the supply staking. But even if we do aim for such a high staking ratio, I don’t think the staking supply would drop substantially if, for example, the inflation rate dropped to 4%. And down the line, we will have liquid staking, so then we might get close to 100% staking ratio even if inflationary rewards will only be 2-3%. 2. Validator Compensation It’s worth thinking through how much of the staking rewards go to token holders versus validators. Validators have real work, fixed and operational costs, etc. Delegators don’t. For delegators more inflation might feel nice, but it basically just means their relative ownership stays the same. For validators, the rewards (or commission earned from rewards is essential). In my view, the Cosmos Hub is underpaying its validators currently. (Obviously I’m biased here since we run a validator with Chorus One). The amount paid for the security is really just 10% (average commission) * 7% = 0.7% of the total supply. But validators do a ton more than just securing…

Excerpt (1197 of 1793 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗