I think we can all agree this is a massive shift and with so many moving parts it’s a little overwhelming to try and project what $ATOM will be in 3 years.
To me, providing some examples as to what revenues will look like in terms of fee structures, how stakers and the treasury will earn these fees and a complete overview of what we might be able to expect.
For sure things will change but it would be nice to try to understand the scope of this proposal vs. just saying “the new fee distribution model will match or outpace current issuance”. Sure, that may be more than possible, but how, exactly, with figures, will this happen?
I guess I’m trying to understand if there are “x” consumer chains and the Hub charges “x” for their services it will generate “x” in fees per some period of time.
Lastly, I can see why people are saying stakers are losing or having to sacrifice yearly issuance rewards so the treasury can build a warchest that doesn’t directly benefit them.
However, if we can get a full picture of the governance model that will be implemented it should ease some minds.
What’s stopping the community from proposing to distribute a portion of the monthly issuance plus a portion of the revenue generated by the treasury to stakers?
If stakers/holders have complete or near complete contra over the treasury it would definitely change my perspective on how the $ATOM issuance is being handled.
100% I would rather have really yield rather than a slightly higher APR from emissions causing inflation. But how you get their and how much control over the treasury stakers/holders have matters so much.
I hope by October 24th we have an idea on how much revenue will be generated by month 12, 24 and 36.
It would also be nice to see the governance proposal so we understand how much actual control is given to stakers/holders over the treasury.
Please, school me if anything I said was incorrect or misunderstood by me.