probably because you are conflating sell with sell at a loss.
1 Like
This sounds amazing to me to be honest.
1 Like
We voted yes, as we see it good for cosmos Tokenomics.
3 Likes
i think i will sell all atom, cause this is stuck in tokenomics and too many people only need it for incentive. i think this is good reason to set minimum at 2-3% but 0% it doesnt meant we are free validators,
1 Like
Is the issue that validators are being paid far to much and could easily cut rewards while still paying for their overhead? This seems antithetical to the idea that ATOM needs a 5% minimum commission rate.
I get a risk free 5.2% just holding USDC on coinbase, so there is no justifiable reason for any user to risk their capital staking ATOM for similar APR and just hope that validators dont arbitrarily raise CP taxes to 40%, lower inflation to 1.3%, or print 40 million ATOM before i can unbond and hope i dont have to sell at a loss.
1 Like
Nope. Please do not reflect from the a clouded, to a healthy thought there.
To each is own my friend .
Statistics speak louder than words, we have broken down the numbers in a separate post for those who are interested: Statistical Analysis of Prop#868 Rejection (Set Min Inflation to 0%)
1 Like
Set Min Inflation at 2%, that may be a better choice or 1%ļ½5%, at least 1%. Most people want to get some interests by staking token.
we cut the max inflain rate by 2x, then why not the min inflation rate as well ? 3,5% to 10% seems to me a good choice
From what I understand, the teams in charge of reshaping atom inflation should soon be proposing something on the forum
isnāt it
2.5% may be a good solution for the lowest inflation, but it depends on many factors.
Has anyone actually done any mathematical calculations for the inflation curve which included āotherā factors, or is everyone just randomly saying numbers? Asking for a fren
1 Like
āOne potential solution is to adjust the minimum inflation rate to 0%. This adjustment offers flexibility and allows stakers and investors to fine-tune the total percentage of bonded tokens based on the incentives provided by the emission rate in the absence of specific revenue from consumer chainsā.
So that means it is just a random number without research, created by someone that has OCD in counting, so it must be absolute zero, thatās why this failed.
I think if the proposals was for Min Inflation of 3.5% (halving), it would have passed. While the 0% lower bound is theoretically the right way to go, neither the community nor the technology overall was mature enough for a 0% lower bound on inflation.
1 Like
the teams in charge of publishing a new tokenomic change proposal should come forward. No communication regarding this.
Agreed. Been a while without updates on that front. @effortcapital wen?
1 Like
@Guinch_Roze @tknox35 We have made a dedicated post on the forum and publicly shared our model to play with all the parameters and see projected effects on the inflation itself:
No one should consider a parameter change proposal unless considering a full scope of the x/mint module and the whole inflation formula.
1 Like
I support the idea of maintaining the maximum inflation at 20%, and I can agree to reduce the minimum inflation rate, but I strongly oppose setting it to 0%. Itās important to recognize that inflation is not inherently bad; its redistributive and engagement-encouraging effects are critical for the networkās health and community vitality.
Reducing inflation to zero overlooks the benefits it brings in terms of participatory incentives. From the perspective of potential profits, lower inflation would actually diminish the value of staking ATOM, potentially leading to a further decrease in its price due to reduced demand. This would not only affect validators but all stakeholders who contribute to network security through staking.
If the goal is to decrease the supply to increase token value, implementing an independent system like EIP-1559 to burn tokens would be a more appropriate approach. This system would adjust the token burn rate based on transaction volume, effectively reducing supply without eliminating inflationary incentives that support network participation and security.
Hello citizens!
We moved to 0% as minimum on Chihuahua Chain, here are some details for people that think it will kill their return:
- Current bonding rate: 42.60%
- Current APR: 9.49%
- Current max inflation: 4.20%
Having the hub staying at 20% max inflation with a 0% min inflation rate would have better return than the current implementation on the Cosmos Hub
Happy to have all voters review again our proposition and get to post it again now that people got some better overview
2 Likes