# ATOM Tokenomics Research Kickoff

**URL:** <https://forum.cosmos.network/t/atom-tokenomics-research-kickoff/16462>\
**Category:** Research Workstream\
**Created:** [November 25, 2025, 5:52pm UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/atom-tokenomics-research-kickoff/16462 "2025-11-25T17:52:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 64

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gregory\_C](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/forum.cosmos.network/gregory_c/32/8756_2.png) [@Gregory\_C](https://forum.cosmos.network/u/Gregory_C)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2025, 8:50pm UTC](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/atom-tokenomics-research-kickoff/16462/64 "2025-12-16T20:50:42Z")

</div>

**A simple hybrid model: revenue-substitution + safety budget + staking guardrail (for discussion)**

Hi all — thanks for the kickoff and for the emphasis on asking the right questions and defining trackable success metrics.

Based on the discussion here (inflation vs security, buybacks/burn, liquid staking effects, and the need for a clear flow model/dashboard), we’d like to share a hybrid monetary-policy sketch designed to be incremental, measurable, and compatible with the current “mint + staking” logic.

1. **Pillar 1 — Define a yearly security budget target: S\_target**

We frame security funding as a budget (in ATOM/year) rather than debating “a good inflation %” in isolation. Concretely, S\_target is the minimum annual amount needed to keep validator economics viable and the chain secure.

**2) Pillar 2 — Substitute real revenues for inflation: S\_revenus → reduces S\_inflation**

We then treat inflation as a residual:

_S\_inflation = max(0, S\_target – S\_revenus)_

_Inflation\_core = S\_inflation / Supply_

So when Hub revenues grow (Cosmos Stack / services / B2B), inflation mechanically declines without requiring repeated ad-hoc parameter cuts. This matches the “revenue-based constraint” direction of the research kickoff.

**3) Pillar 3 — Keep the current inflation curve as a guardrail when staking is too low**

We agree with concerns about staking ratio and security. So we propose preserving the existing inflation mechanism as Inflation\_guardrail (the familiar curve tied to staking), but only as an emergency floor when:

_bonded\_ratio \< stake\_threshold_

Final inflation becomes:

_Inflation\_eff = max(Inflation\_core, Inflation\_guardrail)_

This means:

In normal conditions, revenue-substitution drives inflation down.

In stressed conditions (low staking / high uncertainty), the chain automatically falls back to the known guardrail to protect security.

Why this is useful vs “just burn / just buyback”

Buybacks/burn can reduce dilution, but they don’t automatically create a security-funding rule. This hybrid approach makes the link explicit: real revenues replace issuance while a staking guardrail remains to prevent under-staking.

What we’d like feedback on (aligning with the “right questions” theme)

1. How should we define and measure S\_revenus in a way that’s auditable/on-chain? (i.e make off-chain revenue on-chain)

2. What should be governance inputs for S\_target and stake\_threshold?

3. What dashboard/diagram would best help the community track these flows and outcomes?

Happy to share a concrete numeric example and suggested metrics if helpful.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.cosmos.network/t/atom-tokenomics-research-kickoff/16462)._