I conducted a poll on x. Here are the results. Admittedly only 100 people voted but it’s pretty clear where the sentiment lies.
What is your opinion on the proposal?
Hi @Pete - Thanks for writing out the MIP.
I want to echo what has been said above, and in general, I do not agree with the idea that price sentiment should dictate protocol upgrades. I feel any change (if it occurs) will be short-lived, and it won’t address the larger issues, which are the immediate focus of O1Labs & MF.
I certainly understand (and even share some of) the frustration - we have not delivered. The transition from MF to O1Labs is akin to turning the tanker and a serious change to bring a clear direction to the protocol.
PS: I work for Mina Foundation & the views above are my own.
Thanks for the feedback, i can completely see your perspective.
In my opinion this isn’t about price concerns more about the general sentiment towards Mina as having too much supply and the strong downward momentum that is seeing lower ranking.
Community engagement is really really low, team members are leaving or considering leaving. Without major changes Mina will be a niche project, technically excellent, but ultimately rapidly heading for obscurity.
In my X vote (admitably only 100 votes) around 90% wanted reduced supply.
It seems quite contrary to the poll results in one of the local groups:
Non-technical community:
Yes: 41%
No: 59%
Technical community:
Yes: 25%
No: 75%
Thanks for these. It’s really interesting. I have asked the question several times and i think it’s all about how you ask it.
Eg if you say you do you want to remove staking rewards, a lot of people will say no.
If you say do you want Mina to introduce measures to reduce the supply by 75% then most people will say yes.
Most technical people I’ve spoken to are against it and. I think the reason for this is that it is about making a change that seems illogical to the functionality of Mina.
However in my opinion this is a much bigger question than just functionality, it is about making a change that will stop the ever growing doom loop Mina is in.
As someone who has been here a long time, i don’t say that lightly and in my opinion if nothing dramatic is done soon it will be too late.
Exactly. That is why I provided context (a short summary of your post with the link to this thread), which can be seen in the screenshot. And yes, I can assure you that nothing is lost in translation
Yeah, i appreciate it. What are your thoughts on this or something like this?
I think the fact that so few people are even voting says just as much as the answers to the poll.
I can say that I am not surprised with the current situation, but I am surprised that it cought you off guard. All this didn’t happen overnight. It was very much expectable, wasn’t it?
On removing rewards, I think it is not going to help. It was not inflation that caused problems
I think it’s just been a slow decline in the last 6 months or so that’s coincided with altcoins price decreases and Mina performing worse than the overall market that has exposed and compounded the underlying issues.
You’re right inflation on its own won’t fix the problem, we need a healthy ecosystem, collaborations, dynamic marketing, community engagement and support and the funds needed to do it.
However i also think that addressing the pain point that many people in the community see as a major obstacle (ie supply) would change the narrative.
If we don’t do anything the community that is left will be gone, followed shortly by the talented Devs not working on ‘project untitled’ who will be poached by other zk projects with better prospects.
With respect… anyone who thinks that the situation is sustainable for much longer IMO isn’t looking at the big picture or even worse doesn’t have the experience and ideas to find a solution to change it.
Thanks for sharing this, Pete.
I think it’s a valuable conversation to have — especially right now.
You’re absolutely right about one thing:
Mina needs a narrative shift.
The status quo isn’t working. Inflation is outpacing adoption. Confidence is fragile.
But here’s why I’d suggest a different approach:
Your idea makes sense technically — but socially, it’s risky.
Removing rewards from delegators might:
- Reduce network decentralization
- Push small holders away
- Create a negative sentiment spiral
That’s not ideal when we’re still early and building visibility.
Staking incentives aren’t the root problem.
The issue isn’t “too many delegators”.
It’s too little demand for MINA — because real zkApps aren’t live (yet), and onboarding remains hard.
Killing incentives won’t change that.
But improving UX, docs, and zkApp discoverability might.
Here’s an idea: progressive validator incentives.
What if rewards were:
- Higher for those running full nodes
- But still present (even if small) for delegators?
This would nudge people toward sovereignty without alienating the wider base.
Let’s also spotlight OpenMina & Web Nodes.
We talk about “running your own node” — but most people can’t.
OpenMina could flip that.
Imagine onboarding users via their browser or phone — and rewarding them in some small way.
That’s the cultural shift we need.
So in short:
You’re right — we need to move.
But burning rewards without rebuilding demand might do more harm than good.
Let’s shape incentives to educate and empower, not just punish passivity.
Thanks again for starting this conversation. We need more of these.
Thanks for this Jay. I think in the short term an update that was easy to implement and understand to the community would be my preferred choice.
From my many discussions with non technical community members I am not sure many Mina holders would feel punished by the removal of rewards. Far worse is the slow and steady decline that’s currently happening.
This is also only a short term measure to put the brakes on. AFAIU the forthcoming upgrade will enable easier changes to the protocol so when web nodes and other systems are online the community can look again and decide on the best way forward together.
Making decisions like these is exactly the right way to engage and empower community involvement.
As someone who cares passionately about Mina I’m sure you can feel the desperation among the community with the current situation.
Thanks for your reply, Pete and for your passion. I feel it too.
You’re right: the slow bleed we’re seeing right now is demoralizing. And bold proposals like yours do reignite the community, which is something we badly need.
But here’s where I’d still urge caution:
If we remove rewards too early before zkApps are live, before onboarding improves, we risk pushing away even more non-technical holders who still believe in Mina long-term, even if they don’t run a node.
You’re absolutely right that we need short-term signals and community-driven changes. But maybe there’s a middle ground:
Keep some base reward for stakers to maintain trust.
Amplify rewards for node operators to push sovereignty.
Pair it with clear messaging: “This is the transition phase before OpenMina.”
If the goal is to send a shockwave and buy time, I’m on board.
Let’s just make sure we shock in the right direction, not sideways.
Thanks again for leading the conversation. We need more of it.
Normally I would not have wanted to participate in this forum, but after we have some difficult times, I wanted to participate and contribute.
Mina’s problem is not Supply. The problem is that so far the applications that should have been available to users have not been. The vesting schedule, which is planned according to the scenario of increased network utilization, continues as it is.
This is precisely where the problem lies. The solution is not easy. But there are some ways.
1 - Talk to long term investors and present a new vesting plan for their tokens to the community. (I believe that many of the investors sold their tokens and left. The remaining ones are the ones who still have hope.)
2 - Foundation and O1 Labs will also lock their tokens for the long term with a new vesting plan.
3 - Urgently make some applications, however simple, available to the community.
4 - Burn tokens if you can. (I know you don’t have enough funds due to bad spending by previous administrations)
And some institutional recommendations
- Get rid of institutional arrogance.
- You are in your own echo chamber. Get rid of it.
- Get rid of your superiority complex.
With respect and love
X: @Brigade455
Thanks Jay, great to get your feedback.
The driving force of this proposal comes from hearing about the dissatisfaction Mina holders have with developments and what is seen as a never ending supply of Mina flooding the market.
The issues with zkapp developments are t mainly, o do with it being technically difficult to build strong projects on Mina. After more then a few zkignite programs and large funding to teams line aligned, nil etc this is still a big challenge.
In order to attract new projects there needs to be funding available and fit it to be an attractive proposition to Devs.
Without a change of strategy I’m really concerned this problem will just get bigger and more difficult to resolve.
Can you give some specific ideas/figures on keeping some base rewards ? Hour does that look? Can you give me detail?
Please remember this is just an idea.
There proposal is to keep commission for anyone who runs a node so th
Thanks for the comments. You are right supply is not the problem. Or rather it wouldn’t be if other things were functioning well.
I agree with all your solutions but I’m not sure how many of then are realistic. I think all tokens are vested now (tbc) and from an investor perspective watching the price go lower and lower wouldn’t necessarily give me the confidence to wait longer.
The idea includes a % that would go to O1 as a treasury in order to sustain their needs. Again if there are Mina projects coming up that are going to change the landscape dramatically then the tap can easily be switched on again.
TBH while I’m in awe of the technical advancements I can’t see anything in the hardfork that’s especially exciting to non tech people.
This isn’t a burning option rather he an idea to reduce supply long enough for external momentum to get it’s head back above water.
Feedback from the validator’s group:
the process of distributing rewards is currently not a part of the protocol - it’s just a transaction. Are you suggesting to forbid validators making transactions?
Is this an indirect confirmation that the funding raised by MF and O1 (at an earlier stage)- over 200 million USD is gone and irretrievable?
Thanks for the question… , i have a basic understanding of things, but I’m not an expert. IIUC Currently when node operators win a block they distribute the rewards and take a commission.
My suggestion is that Instead of distributing the rewards they still receive a fixed % for staking but no rewards are distributed and the excess is burned.
A % would also be given to the treasury. This could be done in a trial period. The idea is that less circulation gives existing Mina more value.
Once there are dexs etc in place it could be looked at again.
I have no information at all on that side of things. Brandon has mentioned in public that O1 are ok, but if Mina wants to keep or attract the best devs then there are costs involved.