Summary With the ongoing discussion around Wish For Change #1926, which proposes burning the DOT revenue generated by JAMKB, I would like to propose a way to implement this burn mechanism that better aligns with Polkadot’s long-term monetary model. Instead of implementing a protocol-level burn that…

If anyone would like to present the WFC, please feel free to use the proposal text. Bastian, since you came up with the technical design, would you be interested in submitting the WFC?

Why would we need an extra WFC on top of 1926 though? My 2c is that we should wait for the outcome there. The direction (pre 1926) has been clearly set to redirect any burns to DAP buffer to fund future protocol expenses as a way to compensate declining issuance (as @jonas has mentioned above). If…

The intention is to present this as a standalone proposal. While it provides a solution that is useful for WFC 1926, its scope is not limited to that specific use case. Also it is independent of the DAP and introduces a generic mechanism that can be applied in a variety of scenarios, as I mentioned…

After reading through the whole discussion, I think this proposal is worth putting to a referendum. I put together a full WFC draft based on this thread — Bastian's address derivation, the compatibility argument with the 1710 issuance schedule, the fact that 1926 has passed, and W3F's public endors…

Looks good to me! Go ahead from my side.:fire:

Submitted the WFC based on this thread: [image] Wish for Change: Confirm a canonical, keyless burn account for Polkadot Note The public discussi...

thanks for the WFC :person_bowing: I’ve added a small comment here about how the deployed issuance curve works today (plus a couple of extra ancillary implementation tasks that should be part of an eventual implementation of #1939 )

The WFC referendum never states that it’s real-time; rather, the issuance formula causes the burned amount to be re-minted. This obviously occurs on Pi Day, according to the formula: per_era_payout = 0.1314 * (cap - issue_at_step) / eras_per_year It’s not possible to perform what you’re suggesting…

The curve is re-evaluated at each step, you are right about that. But the re-evaluation does not read the chain’s live total issuance. When the hard cap started, the curve was pinned to a snapshot of total issuance taken at that moment (March 14th, 2026), from then on it’s a function of time only (a…

Proposal: Introduce a Permanent Burn Account for Polkadot

Ecosystem

ultracoconut August 28, 2026, 2:13pm 22

Looks good to me! Go ahead from my side.

Topic		Replies	Views
A request for clarity before JAM: the people who funded this deserve a straight answer Ecosystem	57	2792	August 28, 2026
[WFC]-Proposal to Burn a Portion of Transaction Fees on the Relay Chain and System Chains (This is a draft. Not executed yet) Governance	32	1074	December 16, 2024
[WFC] Burn-Based Tokenomics for Kusama: The Ethereum Model, Not a Hard Cap Governance	64	2558	February 10, 2026
Polkadot's Economics: Tools to Shape the Forseeable Future Governance	24	2687	July 2, 2024
Polkadot Governing Programme: Eight Guidelines to Address Current Challenges Governance treasury	0	103	August 11, 2024

Proposal: Introduce a Permanent Burn Account for Polkadot

Related topics