Fixed Cap, Dynamic Supply

$REGEN Coin
1

Gregory and I attended a Blockscience retreat this weekend. Zargham, the founder of Blockscience, suggested that Regen Network consider shifting to a fixed cap, dynamic supply tokenomic schema.

image
image1000×749 298 KB

Why fixed cap?

We’ve begun hosting a series of gatherings focused on the REGEN token called Ethical Capital Formation. Tokenholders want to understand the economic primitives that govern tokenomics. One of the most iconic numbers in crypto is 21 million: the fixed cap of Bitcoin. To draw an ecological analogy: a fixed cap is akin to carrying capacity—the upper limit of population or resource use within a given ecosystem or context.

Why dynamic supply?

After fixed cap, what is the next most iconic economic primitive in crypto? Deflationary. Ethereum, the number two crypto asset, has driven this narrative through token burning via transaction fees as a result of Ethereum Improvement Proposal 1559. The Ethereum community has since coined the term “ultra-sound money” to encapsulate the effects of the deflationary supply narrative. And yet Ethereum has actually slid back into a net increase in token supply since the initial passage of EIP 1559 in August of 2021. Why is this? Burning rate is determined by fees, and minting rate is determined by block rewards; there isn’t an algorithm linking these two factors to result in a homeostatic system.

To take more traditional comparisons, gold is an approximately fixed-supply asset (while more is being mined, the more we mine the more expensive it is to mine more), while the Federal Reserve and the dollar are based on dynamic supply.

Fixed cap plus dynamic supply is the best of the both worlds. It gives token holders an assurance about long-term economic policy, while also allowing for an economic model that is responsive to real-world de

2

I really want to thank Will and Zargham for putting together this proposal. There has been a lot of discussion about this proposal in the Token Econ WG telegram channel, but it looks like I am going to be the first to share thoughts here in the forum.

I have long been skeptical of most proposals about token economics upgrades. Fundamentally I believe that most of the challenges $REGEN faces in the market have to do with narrative and the challenges of slow and ethical value creation in a hyper competitive market dynamic.So it may come as a surprise to many that I find this proposal incredibly compelling and exciting.

I believe this design, or something like it, can serve to more deeply link the reality that all of $REGEN’s value fundamentally is derived from the ability of our network to produce ecological assets (In the form of eco credits first, and in other forms later). This type of design, which creates a cap, but also allows for dynamic minting and burning parameters, gives us both a strong narrative that investors and community members can understand related to the supply cap, but also gives us the tools we need to manage our rate of both minting and burning to ensure we can provision key network utility areas (security of course, but beyond that data provision, community engagement and marketing and beyond) and link token burning to key activities (eco credit sales, retirements and minting being the most discussed places to link burning, with ecocredit class creation already burning 1000 ecocredits per credit class, and the new 2% of value burn to go into effect in the next major network upgrade).

Here is my bull case for the model: Anchoring Ethical Capital Formation: The Case for a Fixed Cap, Dynamic Supply in $REGEN Tokenomics | by Gregory Landua | Medium

Now let’s dig into some details and talk through some of the more important questions we need to ask, design we need to do, and problems we might face.

3

Re: Fixed Cap, Dynamic Supply - Taking the Next Steps

Thank you Will for sharing this well-researched proposal. The fixed cap with dynamic supply model presents an elegant balance between economic stability and adaptability. I’m particularly interested in the implementation details of how we integrate these tokenomics parameters with our existing infrastructure.

Essential Parameter Considerations

The proposed regrowth rate (r), which encodes the half-life of the supply gap, deserves significant community attention. As Zargham’s equation shows:

S[t+1] = S[t] + r(C-S[t]) - B[t]

This creates a self-stabilizing system where:

  1. As supply approaches the cap, minting naturally slows down
  2. The burning rate provides a counterbalance to minting
  3. Staking and ecological factors modulate the regrowth rate

The beauty of this model is its inherent stability - the fixed cap prevents runaway inflation, while the dynamic supply elements provide flexibility and responsiveness to network conditions.

Integration with Existing Infrastructure

Looking at our codebase, I see several natural connection points where these parameters could be implemented:

Staking Integration

The regrowth rate formula includes a staking component:

r = 0.02 × (1 + S_staked/S_total) × (1 - ΔCO₂/50 ppm)

This should integrate with the Cosmos SDK’s x/staking module, which manages delegation of tokens to validators. The TokenomicsParams structure would need to query the staking ratio:

message TokenomicsParams {
 // base_regrowth_rate is the baseline regrowth rate (r)
 string base_regrowth_rate = 1;
  
 // staking_multiplier_enabled determines whether staking ratio affects regrowth
 bool staking_multiplier_enabled = 2;
  
 // ecological_adjustment_enabled determines whether ecological data affects regrowth
 bool ecological_adjustment_enabled = 3;
  
 // ecological_reference_value is the reference value for ecological adjustment (e.g., 50 ppm)
 string ecolog
4

Ok. seems like Commonwealth is glitching hardcore right now, and my response keeps getting cut off. I have included my full response here for now: $regen dyanamic and fixed supply post - Google Docs

Side note, this leads some credibility to @Paul Weidner 's points about the challenges of Commonwealth. I love the integration with token addresses and governance, but if I cannot share a forum post…that’s an issue.

5

tokenomics and regenerative movement has a lot of motion, prompt

6

A proposal in continuation

Purpose: To support research, simulation, community design workshops, and validator coordination for implementing the Fixed Cap + Dynamic Supply model in $REGEN tokenomics.

:seedling: Context & Motivation

In collaboration with the Regen Foundation and BlockScience, Regen Network has been exploring a Fixed Cap, Dynamic Supply model for its tokenomics — combining the clarity of a supply cap (à la Bitcoin) with the flexibility of dynamic issuance and burn mechanisms (inspired by Ethereum’s EIP-1559).

This approach has strong narrative, economic, and ecological foundations:

  • It reflects carrying capacity in nature — a regenerative metaphor for a sustainable upper bound
  • It enables flexible supply adjustment based on network activity, staking, and verified ecological metrics
  • It anchors ethical capital formation, offering a clear economic vision for Regen tokenholders, stakers, and ecocredit participants

The initial research and formulae (e.g. Zargham’s regrowth equation S[t+1] = S[t] + r(C - S[t]) - B[t]) show promise, but implementation, simulation, and governance design remain incomplete.

:bullseye: Proposal Objectives

This proposal funds a 3-month cross-functional initiative to:

  1. Finalize the Fixed Cap + Dynamic Supply Model
    • Parameter calibration (regrowth rate r, burn functions, ecological data feeds)
    • Simulations of long-term outcomes and stress testing
  2. Stakeholder Design Sessions
    • Engage validators, token holders, ecocredit issuers, and ReFi partners
    • Test and refine incentives, staking mechanisms, and ecological alignment
  3. Governance Integration Plan
    • Develop clear, auditable proposals for on-chain governance upgrades
    • Align with x/staking and other Cosmos SDK modules
  4. Educational & Comms Materials
    • Publish a full explainer (“Ethical Capital Formation: Regen’s New Token Model”)
    • Produce infographics, forums posts, and validator onboarding guides

:hammer_and_wrench: Activities

Category Description
Modeling & Simulation Dynamic supply stress-testing; Cosmos integration modeling
Community Workshops Design sprints with Regen Foundation, validators, and ecocredit actors
Governance Proposal & Audit Prep TokenomicsParams schema, security, and upgrade roadmap
Comms & Ecosystem Activation Report, explainer video, dashboards, Commonwealth Q&A
Reserve & Contingency Unforeseen dev coordination, ecological data contracts

:chart_increasing: Expected Outcomes

  • Live simulation dashboard modeling S[t+1] = S[t] + r(C - S[t]) - B[t] and ecological feedback loops
  • Community consensus on regrowth parameters and staking/ecological multipliers
  • Governance proposal draft for adoption in Q4 2025
  • Educational materials for validators, tokenholders, and credit market participants

:handshake: Strategic Alignment with Regen Mission

Regen Network Goal Alignment
Reward Regeneration Burn mechanisms tied to ecocredit sales, retirements, and registry activity
Data-Driven Verification Regrowth rates modulated by ecological metrics (e.g. ΔCO₂, land data)
Open Economic Infrastructure Transparent, replicable, and narrative-rich token design

:ballot_box_with_ballot: Call to Action

This is a turning point for $REGEN tokenomics. A well-calibrated Fixed Cap + Dynamic Supply system will:

  • Attract capital aligned with ecological long-termism
  • Create narrative legitimacy (carrying capacity + deflation mechanics)
  • Reinforce our commitment to ethical capital formation and regenerative finance

Vote YES to fund the design, simulation, and activation of Regen’s next-generation economic model.

7

I’m voting NO — not because the model lacks merit, but because the timing is off.

Until REGEN has real market volume, liquidity depth, and wider holder distribution, this tokenomic redesign is premature. The inflation just added hasn’t reached enough wallets to matter — narrative alone won’t save us without broad-based participation and real trading ecosystems.

Before layering complex supply dynamics, we need to:

  • Distribute REGEN more widely
  • Incentivize liquidity through LP programs and cross-chain integrations
  • Prove demand through usage, retirement, and real-world flow

Then, and only then, can a fixed cap narrative amplify value.

Until then, this risks distracting us from what Regen Network most needs right now: volume, visibility, and user-level conviction. Let’s focus there.

8

I’m doing my 1st proposal in the daodao, please let me know if anything needs improvement.

I’ve tried to put this text directly in the proposal, but i got some error, probably on the size of the message. Thus would link voting to this post.

Overview

The proposal, developed with Regen Foundation and BlockScience, suggests transitioning $REGEN tokenomics to a Fixed Cap + Dynamic Supply model. This combines the clarity and scarcity narrative of a capped supply (like Bitcoin) with adaptive mint/burn mechanisms responsive to network activity, staking ratios, and ecological metrics (inspired by Ethereum’s EIP-1559 but with feedback loops for stability).

Key Motivations

• Narrative strength: “Carrying capacity” metaphor aligns with Regen’s regenerative mission.

• Economic adaptability: Controlled regrowth rate (r) and burn functions provide supply flexibility while preventing inflation.

• Ecological integration: Regrowth rates can respond to verified ecological data (e.g., CO₂ change).

• Investor clarity: Simple, credible story for tokenholders while retaining operational flexibility.

Proposed Next Steps (3-month initiative)

1. Finalize Model & Parameters – Calibrate regrowth rate, burn triggers, and ecological data feeds.

2. Simulation & Stress Testing – Model long-term supply behavior under varied network conditions.

3. Stakeholder Workshops – Engage validators, tokenholders, ecocredit actors for design feedback.

4. Governance Integration – Prepare proposals and code changes for Cosmos SDK modules.

5. Education & Comms – Publish explainer, infographics, validator guides.

Expected Outcomes

• Live simulation dashboard

• Community consensus on key parameters

• Governance proposal ready for Q4 2025

• Educational materials to support adoption

Supportive View

• Strong alignment with Regen’s ecological and economic goals.

• Offers both scarcity narrative and practical flexibility.

• Links token value more directly to ecological asset flows (sales, retirements, credit class creation).

• Tools to manage network funding needs while reinforcing ecological mission.

Critical View

• Model has merit, but timing is premature.

• Priority should be growing market volume, liquidity, and wider token distribution first.

• Inflation changes haven’t yet reached enough participants to matter.

• Without strong market demand and usage, a supply-cap narrative won’t drive value.

• Risk: distraction from urgent needs like liquidity incentives, user growth, and trading depth.

Call to Action for Signalling Vote

• Vote YES to initiate research, simulation, and design work toward implementing the model, or

• NO if you believe Regen should focus first on market traction before major tokenomic redesign.