My first post on the forum, if that’s not hype! I would vote yes and I give my full support to this project and its vision.
However, I have a small question regarding the Neutron model. When I read the idea, I immediately think of Juno and its failures. Not everyone may share my opinion, but I tend to believe that one of Juno’s problems is the lack of quality applications and, on the contrary, the proliferation of poor quality applications which, taken as a whole, give a bad image of this network (I skip over governance).
In the end, aren’t you afraid of undergoing the same pattern?
Do you have a plan to attract developers and qualitative applications that could really drive value on the network? Can you tell me more about this.
Like others have said, I to see details of the initial Neutron distribution as this will likely be more important economically than revenue in the early days.
I think Neutron brings fantastic opportunities to the hub and this is a hugely exciting moment.
That’s a fair concern, and I cannot give you guarantees: at the end of the day, it will be up to the respective protocol’s governance and to the Neutron DAO to strike the right agreements to build a very strong ecosystem.
What I can say is we’re in touch with a lot of really strong teams that are excited to build on Neutron. We are excited to help them make proposal to their respective DAOs and to Neutron’s, as many of them have strong products which we think would perfectly complement Neutron’s thesis.
There’s also a lot of work to be done on the education/onboarding front. We’re looking forward to joining hackathons and organizing workshops, to showcase Neutron’s infrastructure and help good teams leverage it. We’re in touch with great training program that are interested in teaching about Neutron’s technology.
It’s impossible to predict that a network will be successful, but I’m personally very enthusiastic about Neutron’s future. I think it has all the chances to grow a strong ecosystem of DeFi dApps.
Validstors at thr bottom set currently make ~3000 dollars a year. Thats just enough to run a simple node+backup system. So a lot more than 1.45% is needed to get these people from loss making by adding another chain.
@Spaydh thanks for all your answers!
Another question regarding the ticker “NTRN”. On coinmarketcap is already one called NTRN but it’s not this Neutron. Do you plan to call yours aNTRN or something or keep it with NTRN?
what will be the precision of the NTRN token? same as ATOM, 6?
Yes, 6, same as ATOM.
On coinmarketcap is already one called NTRN but it’s not this Neutron.
Websites such as Coinmarketcap and Coingecko allow multiple tokens with the same tickers to be presented so I don’t think that would be an issue at all. Case in point, someone already successfully registered NTRN on Coingecko
Seeing that Quasar (congratulations to them on the launch!) is experiencing some relay issues in managing the flow from ICA and ICQ (if i’ve understood well), due to a certain success, a question arises: How do you anticipate a potential high demand at launch in this area? Have you already established partnerships in terms of IBC relays that are likely to support the load?
Thank you!
no doubt about P2P’s skills and quality of their infra.
seing this tweet
i also wonder if you work hand to hand with StrangeLove to optimise the relayer software/take some experience from them regarding the new kind of “loads” the relayers have to deal with.
Anyways thanks for your answers. And good luck with the next steps. (:
I could be wrong, but here are some back-of-the-napkin numbers Im seeing:
Validator #175 has ~86000 ATOM. Lets assume 5% commission and current 16% inflation @ $11.5/ATOM (current price)
Validator Revenue = ~$8k/yr
The minimum cost to run a validator is ~$400/monthly today.
Validator Cost = ~$4800/yr
Now Hub validators will have to run 2 of these systems ($9600/yr)
To break even, a validator would have to bring in $9600/yr.
Using the same input parameters (86k ATOM, 5% commission, 16% inflation), ATOM would need to be $13.80 (or a ~20% increase from current price) for validators to break even.
The commission rate for the bottom validators changes this number drastically.
For example - I used 5% commission, but they actually have 8% commission and are actually profitable as long as ATOM is at least $8.6 (a 25% decrease from current price).
Ultimately if validators in the bottom tier are losing money, they either need to increase commissions (some currently have 0.5% commission and wouldn’t be profitable until $130 ATOM), or make a business decision to drop out.
The 1.45% increase might’ve been an aggregate average of the bottom quartile validators. In either case, I think we can all agree that Replicated Security, and Neutron, should make ATOM more valuable and make 99.999% of active set validators whole
We’ve worked closely with Strangelove in the past, your suggestion is welcome, I’ll get in touch with them to learn from their experience with Quasar. Thanks Tom
