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.