I hope this message finds you well, HERE IS THE VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/live/wRgvt5afm54?t=120s
THANK YOU
6 Likes
Great share, thanks. 1000% on everything he said.
2 Likes
I am not sure what the exact messaging here was, and I listened to a few minutes of the video. But worth noting, there are many efforts to add more deflationary pressure to DOT.
As it stands, the (be it small) coretime revenue (analogous to BLOB fees in ETH) is actually burnt. Although the coretime market is definitely an area for improvement: Revisit Market Design of Coretime Sales by jonasW3F · Pull Request #17 · polkadot-fellows/RFCs · GitHub
Unused part of the inflation that goes to the treasury is burnt every 24h: doTreasury | Empower treasury with credit building.
A subset of the fee (in DOT) in relay and system parachains is burnt. In system chains, where most of the activity will happen in the future, it was recently approved to increase it to 80%: Deflationary Transaction Fee Model for Relay- and System Chains by jonasW3F · Pull Request #146 · polkadot-fellows/RFCs · GitHub
Inflation in Polkadot has been fairly high, and is being adjusted to lower, and I still hear appreciation from multiple parties to go further, but it is a Governance decision at the end of the day. Another way to look at it it is also that the subset of the inflation that goes to treasury, assuming treasury spending becomes less, can already be assumed to be burnt.
I think this is definitely a moving trend, and the deflationary pressure of DOT will increase in the future.
(you might find this section of the interview too)
2 Likes
Surely there are some lessons to be learned…
The Web3 Foundation gave grants to numerous projects that introduced their own tokens as the means of transaction payment (e.g., Acala, Equilibrium, etc.).
This led to many parachains requiring users to acquire these tokens just to make a transaction—absolutely not user-friendly!
It’s in the best interest of both users and DOT stakeholders that DOT remains the default asset for paying fees. I believe this wasn’t adequately considered when grants were issued or treasury funding was allocated.
Saying everything is a governance decision feels like a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.
Usually, a new runtime is released with a set of changes, and stakeholders can only vote yes or no on the entire package.
When it comes to coretime, for instance, there are several competing ideas and ongoing discussions, but stakeholders have never really had the option to choose between them directly.
2 Likes