The change will happen each year, end of August.
1 Like
Ok, I can follow that reasoning. That would mean that the basis of a different fee structure would also get built in 2022/ 2023?
There needs to be time for that to be built - so probably would be late 2022-2023. Coinciding with the inflation drop, or following close behind it.
While opinions and options of what to do are good, are there any actual data and analytics to back decision making? Specifically those pertaining to the Fuse network.
To bring a different perspective, a couple points:
ā If the proposal change is set for around Aug 2022 and if inflation can be reduce at any time, why not push the voting to a later date such as 3 to 6 months prior to Aug 2022? This is because things can move quickly but it could also fall outside of expectations and so, we might be in a better position to decide later on.
ā One of my biggest worry is thereās a lack of idea as to what would actually happen if this gets approve. Seems all hypothetical. I can get behind the idea of a proposed reduction in the inflation rate but then again my concern is why cut in half? And then half yearly? It seems weāre just following Bitcoin as an example but Bitcoin was the first mover, has a large network following, and already been through prior halvings. Also Bitcoinās halving cycle is based on 4 year period rather than each consecutive year.
I know that others have pointed out that thereās time for Fuse network to grow more as well in regards to the period leading up to a potential change. I totally agree. But when it comes to large decisions that would affect the entire network, I know I rather see actual metrics that would back up the decision of halving the inflation rate. Ideally it would be metrics over time. An easy example would be statistics and network data such as shown in ethereum explorer: Ethereum Charts and Statistics | Etherscan and protocol metrics for example from Defillama.
ā My more cautious side would say lower the risk to an acceptable amount so it can be contained, gauge the response, and then plan accordingly for the next iteration. Since this would be the first time the inflation rate is set to decrease, why not set a smaller decrease target say 4% and gauge the network and market reaction. This is more of a subjective concern being that if there were to be a potential negative reaction, could we readily recover?
Hello Guys,
I would like to know if Inflation Model was already voted ? And if yes, which was voted ?
Thanks
No, it hasnāt been voted on. A final inflation scheme hasnāt been confirmed.
If the validators are paid with the gas from the transactions, I donāt understand why $fuse has an unlimited emission and not a fixed supply.
I think that blockchains like Polygon and bsc have never had complaints about their tokenomics, instead ethereum, even being the largest blockchain, its tokenomics, which is similar to FUSE, It was always a topic of debate. I think the FUSE team should mint a limited number of coins, sayā¦ I donāt know, 60,000,000? 100,000,000? The number is not the main thing, the main thing is to set the limit.
1 Like
Yes, iāve done quite a bit of modelling to show that txs gas fees could be enough to pay nodes running costs. It can be done, and the network is on the way by increasing the minimum gas fee to 10gwei. As the network expands there will be a simultaneous increase in both the number of txs and an increase in gas for high value txs. Weāre still a long way (probably many years) from this covering node running costs though.
As such, there still needs to be an inflation rate to provide the rewards to nodes, else thereās no reason to run one. The models above all show a decreasing inflation rate over time. I think there is a consensus that this would be a good thing to do.
Re fixed supply - getting to a fixed supply would probably be my preference as well - or a tiny inflation rate with a tx gas burn that allows some flexibility but doesnāt increase supply.
2 Likes
An inflation rate is not necessary to pay nodes, the nodes earn with the tx fees, it already happens in bsc, a variable gas rate can be reset. In this current form, only large investors are benefiting,we need to change to a limited supply, the currency acquires a certain predictability and thereby attracts investors and development. But I donāt think itās even under consideration, this debate is over a year old.
1 Like
They should start reducing the emission, I donāt know, 1% every 6 months? I donāt think the validators will notice the difference, and the price I think would tend to go up.
2 Likes
It occurs to me that Fuse can implement 2 mechanisms to combat inflation, the idea would be to apply the two mechanisms simultaneously:
- Slightly increase the GAS, which is currently 11, in an almost imperceptible way, establishing a fixed minimum gas (could be 13) in which a small percentage (2) is burned, and in the occasions in which the GAS goes up by For any reason (>13), that surplus is distributed 50% as a reward to Validators and 50% is burned.
Here I leave a spreadsheet that I created with some data taken from the Fuse stats as a reference to be able to create a projection, that as you can see, approximately 20% of the tx fees would be burned, practically without diminishing the rewards to the Validators.
- On the other hand, and much simpler, I also made a spreadsheet with a projection of what would be a monthly decrease in the emission of Fuse, I calculated a monthly 2%, (but that number could vary):
In the year 2070, Fuse would still be minting. Something similar to the Bitcoin Halving.
2 Likes
Great post @Pablorosatti. I really appreciate the thought and input you are giving to different aspects of Fuse and Volt.
Fee burning similar to the ETH method is (I think) a well supported idea for implementation on Fuse.
Increasing minimum gas fee as well, but that requires nodes to update their software so needs better decentralised node management. The aim is to have nodes earning the majority of their income from gas fees and not inflation.
1 Like
Yes, to modify the distribution of the fees it is necessary to update the software of the nodes, the same as when they changed the gas from 1 to 10. In my proposal, the validators would continue to receive the same 11 gwei that they receive now, only it would increase by 18% GAS, and the 2 GWEI that are added would be destined for burning. Only in the case of a gas increase, they would be divided 50% for validators and 50% for burn.
1 Like