Thanks Jonathan, I’m supportive of the idea of DAO governance, but I think it’s beyond the scope of the current MIP which imo is best limited to tokenomics.
I agree; however, I think it is helpful to add an expectation that the design (and implementation) should consider which parameters should be able to be managed through a governance process. I am raising it for that purpose, not to turn this into a governance conversation.
Any changes could be implemented in a manner that would require a hard fork to change, or, could be implemented such that key parameters may be changed via governance.
(Even though we don’t have that governance mechanism in existence yet. I’m thinking about things like the supercharged awards being stuck for years waiting on a hard fork; we can avoid things like that in the future if we think about governance up front, and build it in to the design and into the implementation expectations.)
1 Like
I’m not convinced a MIP is suitable for this.
If there is enough support for researching tokenomics, it should just get done with Foundation support, with the results presented with an actionable MIP. What about a zkIgnite proposal (infra track), which, if gained support, would be funded and also provide clarity to the community about how it was funded?
I’m not sure this issue merits too much research, given the 1 billion tokens already circulating. We’re realistically talking about two major levers we can toggle, which are the block rewards and fee burning. There’s already a reasonable proposal for this based on Evan’s initial outline. Likely, the major effort here is in the implementation of the fee-burning and then any adjustment to this plan based on what we actually see based on network usage.
I think Jonathan’s comments are pertinent as, assuming we are simply dealing with two constants of block rewards and fee burning % (arguably, we could increase the tx limit per block, but that is more of an engineering-based decision), the ability to alter these at a more frequent cadence would be very beneficial.
1 Like
I think the research part could be on whether there are extra design space outside of the two levers that you mentioned. zkApps are different from the dapps on Ethereum in that the proving cost (gas) on chain is more or less constant no matter the complexity of the computation itself. Mina will also predominantly feature L2s and app-chains for scaling purposes. It’s my hunch that there could be some tokenomics design space to capture these unique properties.
But if @evan or @o1emre would prefer to directly commission the review and then for the community to vote on the outcome of the review, then I’m all for it too. 