Repeatedly, we’ve stressed the importance of approaching the reform as a broad discussion covering all four parameters: InflationRateChange, InflationMax, InflationMin, and GoalBonded. To illustrate the necessity of this holistic perspective, we’ve created a dedicated research topic to the subject, presenting a straightforward inflation model: The x/mint Module and understanding the Inflation Rate Calculation.
Making adjustments to the parameters individually, without considering the entire set, lacks coherence. These parameters are interdependent, and their evaluation should be done comprehensively. Our approach would have been to discuss the model first and then subject the conclusions to a vote. We express regret for the current trajectory of the debate, which has focused on individual parameters while overlooking the overarching architecture of the inflation formula.
The ongoing discussion serves as a vivid example of this oversight. Setting the “InflationRateChange” to an optimal level hinges on defining appropriate levels for the other three parameters.
Example:
Utilizing our model (source: Google Sheets), we observe that adjusting “InflationRateChange” to “3” with the proposed “InflationMax” at “0.1,” “InflationMin” at “0,” and “GoalBonded” unchanged would lead to 0% inflation in about six months if the bonded ratio converges toward 75%. This scenario would necessitate a prompt adjustment of the “GoalBonded” parameter to avoid a sudden shift to 0% inflation, altering the economic model drastically and likely damaging the chain’s reputation durably.
We insist, it is crucial that we engage in a comprehensive debate on all four parameters, constructing a unified vision that garners consensus from the majority of participants, rather than blindly modifying parameters one by one.
