I wonder if the solution here isn’t something like the following:
- Blockchain has configured storage details
- Calculate the storage cost of extrinsic X (using data from A)
- Discount rate, size of X, term/horizon can be finite/infinite
- Value as a growing annuity, annuity due, or perpetuity as required
- Blockchain treasury account invests amount from 2.2 at the discount rate obtained in 2.1
- Storage costs paid from the cash flow stream generated by 3.
This raises questions that have some implications and requirements.
- What is the appropriate discount rate?
- I’d suggest whatever Black’s Zero-Beta CAPM indicates, is a reasonable starting point. However, we are some way from knowing how to get that for even the simple token considered there - which DOT is not.
- The only way the treasury can assure there exists an investment that pays a return at least the discount rate is to make the return to system staking be that discount rate.
- The staking yield vs staked % calculation would need to change to ensure the at least condition above.
- The treasury then would need to be able to nominate validators by staking the amounts obtained from 3 above.
- Changes to the staking yields now have another ‘thing’ to take into account.
- What happens when/if the required rate of return decreases?
- The DOT required rate of return will fluctuate. Like all securities…
@rich this has the property of removing/avoiding the secondary dependency. At the cost of having to create a new category of node. Specifically, storage nodes.
Will the economics of storage nodes work out such that the data fees are not a disincentive?