Thanks everyone for the feedback! I was trying to keep in mind all the different criteria across the community, so glad that it is sounding good.
To reply to some specific questions:
- @EmrePiconbello the supercharged reward schedule here is intended to be the same as was in the original token economics, I didn’t want to change that too much. Let me know if that matches out, or where you’re seeing the difference
- @BeaconChain That’s a good point re account creation fee, I think I was imaging it would become recoverable as you mention in that thread at some point, so I wasn’t thinking about it burning any supply. I don’t think it would be necessarily be that impactful though, especially if we go ahead with reducing the amount burned per new account as mentioned on that other thread - if it goes down to 0.25 Mina, at 1 million new accounts that’s still only a small fraction of supply (250,000 Mina) burned / locked up. I’d be curious on snark fees too, I haven’t seen any deep analysis of that market, but I’d be also interested on things like fee shocks.
I’ll try making a quick poll here too, if people prefer that way of giving input.
- I think Mina’s tokenomics should stay the same
- I think Mina’s tokenomics should adopt the schedule presented here
- I like the tokenomics proposal presented here, but we should not include fee burning until that mechanism is better understood
- I like a separate proposal not mentioned here (please comment below)
0 voters
I’ll mention as well a pet peeve I have on polls, you never learn why someone thinks what they do about something, so if there’s disagreement, its harder to find out why and understand concerns (I feel like US politics for example suffers from this problem). That’s why I think potentially pol.is and other tools like that could help giving more insight, but for now discourse’s polling tools are so convenient (and we don’t have that many participants commenting yet), so might as well use it for now.