A Burn Proposal

There is no data available, but it can be observed and evaluated as the Atom economy zone develops. This is an approach to gradually achieve deflation without affecting the current situation as much as possible. Alternatively, if 50% is too high, we can start with 10%.

Because this won’t affect the interests of current Stakers, this is the key, making it a feasible approach.It’s just an idea and there has been no communication with the LSD-related team.

1 Like

it was my impression that unaccountable DAO treasuries and implication of unnecessarily high salaries for council gate keepers were swatted down with the 2.0 proposal.

LSDs bringing down inflation over time is an inevitability of their existence, 2.0 sought to speed it up with sudden dilution of stake holders and installing untested LSD providers instead of making them compete for market share.

@andy can you elaborate further on the mechanics being proposed here:

and how this will work:

it seems there is no conflict between CP/development fund and atom staker interests. It is in the interest of the stakers to fund development through the community pool. the conflict is validator nepotism and corruption in fund distribution. this apparent conflict has lead to a push for less accountable centralized DAO treasury systems rather than more decentralized and transparent quarterly ranked-choice funding rounds that align with the communities desires instead of the nepotistic flailing of a council gate keeper.

Well then you were not paying attention… What section of the Atom 2.0 proposal even insinuated these assumptions? These ideas are so far out of left field, they seem laughable.
Any group doing work would like to be paid and even now persons managing the treasury are being paid. You would need to justify the claim of unnecessarily high salaries and explain why that isn’t the case right now.

Not even going to write a response, since none of what you said is even hinted at in the proposal, so it seems this is something you just plain made up.

yes,but we can do better,A robust currency system should have both the function of issuing and withdrawing currency.
IMO,ATOM Stakers include validator,Although nominally Atom Shakers and Validators are two different groups of people, they form a collective when it comes to voting and can consider issues together.

If inflation is directly lowered, it may not only be subject to the voting process but also lead to a shortage of funds in the community pool. Therefore, we introduce the function of burning in the new economic zone, which enables the entire token system to operate in a benign manner.


To ATOM 2.0,I vote yes .The greatest significance of 2.0 is to provide the direction rather than the specific implementation method. For example, proposals such as adding a community pool can be implemented and are better ways to implement the direction provided. Directly lowering inflation and allowing Stakers to vote on it is similar to voting in favor of increasing taxes, which obviously has better alternatives.

I base this on the assumption that DAO treasury systems would be stupid large given no current budget proposal to base fund distribution on and the assumption that the larger the treasury the larger the salary required to keep them from stealing it. combined with the fact that a DAO responsible for distribution and in control of all community pool funds is entirely unnecessary with ranked choice voting to distribute funds solves these issues by limiting risk of theft or waste and making predictable the nominal value of funds available to any one council based on community sentiment and desire and reflected on chain.

Validators do control the vote, forming an oligopoly within the cosmos. your proposal is beneficial to them in that it helps maintain or raise the price of the tokens they dump to pay their bills at no expense to themselves, and i assumed was the reason you said:

what direction did 2.0 provide?

Can you provide practical suggestions for constructive discussion of a proposal that cannot solve all problems, and for evaluating proposals based on their potential to bring improvement rather than simply repeating criticisms that the proposal cannot address fundamental issues?

1 Like

if i can get more information


assumption + assumption + assumption = certainty,
sometimes. in some parallel worlds.

1 Like

Is there a point you are trying to make? One is not apparent within your failed attempt. Other than your own existence, everything is an assumption. I can further support my assumptions, if you would like.

In fact, High inflation is killing ATOM.
The purpose of inflation was making more people to stake,but too high inflation make more people to sell their ATOM,then more less people want to stake. it will become death spiral.
It’s time to change if ATOM want to make great like BTC and ETH, Both of them are low inflation.
Relative to burn 50% income, reduce 30% per year income of Staker reasonable

1 Like

isnt inflation the rate at which your liquidity is returned to you in exchange for locking up through staking? Liquid staking will result in the same cycles you describe where more LSDs = lower inflation → more unbonding = higher inflation → more staking & repeat, until LSD providers own all the chains/top LSD validators own/control all the chains…assuming they can eventually fix the LPs or make LSDs worth their risk.

People are more afraid of loss , high inflation causes prices to fall. When prices fall, people will choose to sell rather than stake, leading to further price drops

Inflation is not the only way to generate staking reward. You have mechanisms like taxation, MEV harvesting, transaction fees, etc. Inflation is one of the most damaging mechanisms to generate staking rewards, because it extracts value from atom holders and gives said value to atom stakers(similar to a ponzi scheme/pyramid scheme). Inflation generally should be used for the short term and phased out for the long term.

1 Like

From my point of view, inflation only benefits financial service providers who sell APY to their clients and do not care about a healthy hub.

I think if we ask everyone their opinion on the ATOM tokenomics, every retails and private investors will tell you that inflation is not beneficial for them and that they are all ready to pay much higher tx fees if its to create value for holders and a more desirable token and healthy network. I mean, by what I hear.

I really hope that the cosmos hub will manage to get out of this crazy inflation asap!


This can be proven only ex-post, so it can have problems if you pay ex-ante. You can only expect some quality in the work, and assume the contributor incentives only if you have history of that account.

Good point! I guess it also serves other purposes, but the APY one is very big, brings speculation and bad reputation to the ecosystem, especially in the eyes of the developers we are trying to attrack.

I believe this proposal makes sense. It is already happening on Ethereum, Binance, Fantom, etc. protocols and is a missing feature of Cosmos.

I don’t think this proposal reduces the security of the network, or if it does, only temporarily, because the price should adjust upwards given a smaller supply and an equal demand.
Also, the tokens being burnt should not be the staked tokens but the free ones that have just been used to pay for (any?) transaction.
Basically in the medium-long term you are doing a favor to validators even if you reduce their incoming tokens quantity: they will just have to sell less of them cause of the increased price and the decreased total supply. They could even increase their wanted gas for tx fees, and that would increase the monetary value of the demand, hence better test (price) the utility of the protocol to the user.

Up for building the burn feature in the x/bank module, that again, many other protocols have and Cosmos is missing (the base actually exists but is used only for validator slashes and vetoed gov. proposals, right?).

At a later point, we should evaluate (still through governance) how to integrate it with the other existing functions. The easiest integration may not the best one, for example if you tap into the gas meter you should have the general behaviour I hypotetized above, but you could decide to impact only some functions (for example x/bank’s SendKeeper and some MsdSend functions) to subsidize others, like governing.

1 Like