Sharing the finalized tokenomics audit report for Mina Protocol.
After incorporating your feedback from last fall, this report examines Mina’s current tokenomics, compares it with that of peer projects, and simulates potential changes to inform community discussion about inflation and other economic aspects of the protocol.
Note: This is an in-depth analysis conducted by Economics Design, as commissioned by Mina Foundation. It is meant to be an educational resource to inform potential community-led tokenomics changes through future Mina Improvement Proposals (MIPs), and is not intended as an endorsement of any specific approach.
Why does this report include projected numbers for inflation from a chart published pre-mainnet and not actual values for inflation? Inflation is not close to 9% (~5.6% based on last epoch), which undermines a key piece of this research.
The first pre-report was very off, and the feedback outlined many problems. Mina, as an L1, has very complex structures. This could be understandable for a pre-report, but for a full report, without even knowing the actual numbers on the chain and not understanding many of the dynamics on-chain, writing it as a final report is simply not acceptable at any scale, in my opinion.
I was at MinaCon and i don’t think there was anyone there who a deep understanding of Mina who thought any of the recommendations made much sense. It’s disappointing to hear that Gareth is suggesting the figures used aren’t accurate, which if it’s true, it’s a basic error and undermines the credibility overall.
My first impressions are:
1: A way to support a treasury by using a % of block rewards to keep the foundation funded is sensible
2: Any kind of lock up period for tokens in the current climate would make Mina very unattractive to new investors and could cause many existing holders to either move to exchanges or sell.
Most importantly is to make changes that signal something exciting and make Mina an interesting project to get involved with.
IMO a big mistake devs make is too assume regular holders care about technical progress as much as they do. If holders are losing money on an investment they sell and don’t come back again. Mina needs actual products and use cases and by now that’s more than a reasonable expectation.
From a marketing / business side the perception of positive changes can be really important
And finally, 2% of something is better than 7% of nothing.
Hi Gareth, the inflation rate fluctuates depending on the number of BPs per time slot, but what is constant is the 720Mina per block, and it is the only parameter we can control here. The report focuses on that aspect, and recommends reducing it further down.
Hi Berkeley,
There is no firm recommendation to implement the 80-20 split—it is simply used as an assumption to evaluate the potential impacts if it were adopted. The report presents multiple scenarios purely for informational purposes and to offer comparables. That said, the recommendation section does not include this specific mechanism.
Hi Emre,
the report covered multiple aspects of the Mina Economy, focusing on the potential economic levers that could have a positive impact. can you clarify which numbers and dynamics are off or missing? (really curious to get your input here)
Thanks, Pete, for sharing your thoughts — totally understand the concerns. The scenarios in the report were meant to explore potential impacts, not to push specific recommendations. The final suggestions focus on broader principles, not fixed mechanisms.
The data used to analyze certain aspects came from multiple sources and was sometimes inconsistent, so we focused on trends rather than absolute values — trends matter more in strategic planning anyway.
We agree that any changes need to be exciting, investor-friendly, and clearly signal progress. The real catalyst for Mina is adding zkApps and driving real on-chain activity. Perception matters, but real utility is what sustains growth.
Thanks for the comments and additional context. Totally understand you were limited by the information given to you, and i think there are good points put forward in the document, that can lead to further discussions.
It depends on the number of slots filled, not the number of BPs per slot. Clearly, you can average the actual inflation over any time period for a solid estimation. Averaging it per epoch makes a lot of sense (I did this for MIP1). Presenting an argument that is based on the inflation rate being at 9% when it objectively isn’t is flawed.
Edit: added the data since the hard fork, so this is annualized inflation per epoch. Will continue to drop, assuming same fill rate due to the fixed block rewards and increasing total supply.
Thanks for your feedback, Gareth. We’ll review the content of the report to reflect that and ensure we’re focusing on the right KPIs. As you mentioned, inflation fluctuates based on the number of slots filled (by the way, the report was analyzing data up to December 2024). Our main focus was on the 720 MINA per block and evaluating the potential impact of reducing that to 540 MINA per block.
I think MINA is doing well with tokenomics (there is no need to change anything). It needs a strong marketer and market maker to promote the project (almost all top projects have them).
