I honestly don’t understand why W3F hasn’t taken any initiative in response to this repeated demand from community members. Do they really believe that a token with infinite supply is a great idea, or are we all supposed to just pretend this isn’t an issue?
A thought on this thread’s direction:
W3F has an important role in Kusama’s future — but Kusama is a decentralized network. W3F doesn’t owe us statements on demand, and ChaosDAO doesn’t owe us explanations for their votes. They both operate in a more closed-door fashion, and that’s their right. I won’t be the one criticizing them for it.
What I’d rather focus on: building a coalition of people who prefer working in the open. Aligned on values — including respecting each other, even when we disagree. If enough of us do that, we’ll have a meaningful voice.
Attacking each other only benefits our competitors.
The proposal is on-chain. The thread is open. Let’s keep building.
@Criptoe4u — I just asked that we keep this thread respectful. In the same breath, you’re calling W3F “a head without a brain, a puppet.”
I understand your frustration with how things have gone. But this is my proposal thread, and this approach isn’t helping it — or Kusama.
If you want to build a case against W3F, start your own thread. Here, I’m asking for respect — for everyone, including those we disagree with.
I pretty agree here unfortunately.
The discussion about tokenomics change was open for weeks, W3F didn’t participate.
The Polkadot tokenomics changes happened because Jay decided to do something (let’s recognize this good move), not because W3F was pro-active about it.
So the history repeats.
W3F is blaming the community, but at the same time there is no involvement from W3F about Kusama tokenomics changes, with KSM going to 0.
And this probably doesn’t require a massive economic research as the discussion already happened on Polkadot with the exact same root causes (not enough demand, too much security, high inflation etc etc…).
I feel like Kusama’s tokenomics are just abandoned by W3F.
This is my sentiment.
The only point i agree is about the newly & unverified account. That was probably not a good idea, but it’s a bit of a lame excuse.
I’m forwarding to seeing way much more implication from W3F about this sensitive topic.
So whats will w3f do?
They have 30% of total supply ksm.
Update: 5 days remaining, vote at 46.5% Aye
When ChaosDAO voted early, this sat at ~98% Nay. It’s now 46.5% — closer than any tokenomics proposal Kusama has seen in recent memory.
A few points worth restating:
The numbers improved. @monsieurbulb’s treasury correction (Post 34) means net inflation lands at ~3.0-3.5%, not ~4.25%. The proposal delivers more than
originally projected.
This is half of a package. @olanod’s phased validator reduction addresses costs. This addresses supply. Together they move Kusama toward sustainable economics.
Referendum: [link]
@Leemo shared some thoughtful feedback on Twitter regarding this referendum. Since I participate only on the forum (no DMs/email for privacy/security reasons), I’m
responding here and hope he sees it.
On the “most extreme option” concern:
I’d push back on this framing for this specific proposal. With respect to @Criptoe4u , who’s been an engaged participant in this thread, a 21M hard cap with Bitcoin-style halvings would be the more extreme option. This proposal is deliberately conservative:
- 5% base inflation (down from 7.82%), not 0%
- Burns that scale with activity, not a fixed cap
- A stated roadmap: 5% → 4% → 3% → 2-3% over years, contingent on success metrics
- All parameters remain governance-adjustable
Burns are the moderate path between “change nothing” and “hard cap.” If anything, the criticism from the other direction is that this doesn’t go far enough.
On expert review:
This is reasonable to ask for. But I’d note: this discussion has been open for weeks. W3F hasn’t participated. @ThomasR made this point in Post 47 — the Polkadot tokenomics changes happened because @ChrawnnaCorp acted, not because W3F was proactive.
So here’s an open invitation: W3F economists are welcome to review this proposal and provide feedback here. This thread is the place. I don’t do DMs or email — the forum is where I engage. If there’s a preferred process for requesting formal review, I’m happy to follow it, but it would need to be something accessible through public channels.
On participation:
The 0.45% participation concern is valid. It’s also structural — it applies to nearly every Kusama referendum. If this is disqualifying, we need to address governance design, not reject proposals that meet the protocol’s own requirements.
On the anonymous account:
Fair criticism on optics. But the math is either right or it’s not. The treasury balance, fee data, and projections are all verifiable on-chain. I’d welcome scrutiny of the numbers rather than the messenger.
On ChaosDAO:
I can imagine it’s frustrating to have ChaosDAO constantly criticized in threads like this — I’ve pushed back on that repeatedly here. I value ChaosDAO’s contribution to Kusama governance. When they vote, I take it as a signal worth understanding, which I assume is the intent. The ecosystem benefits from groups that take governance seriously.
Thanks for posting a link to the tweet, I was going to do it myself this morning, haha.
Below are my personal thoughts, and they are not indicative of anything or anyone that I may be affiliated with.
Overall, I can see/understand your points – but I would still, personally, prefer that some kind of impact study be done by competent people (such as economic researchers) regarding these changes. Btw I am not questioning yours or anyone else’s competency, but it is difficult to gauge with pseudo anonymity, but I am leaning on the side that you probably have some idea what your are talking about – I myself am not someone who is competent enough to fully assess these changes, hence why my vote is NAY, which maintains the status quo, until I can be convinced by people who I know have the competence.
This is similar to work I have done in a past life, where even though I was competent to carry out my work, it was still always reviewed by someone more senior than me. Similarly, before undertaking a large project, we would conduct impact/management of change studies to ensure that there would be no negative consequences to the project – and if there were to be any, we would ensure that changes were made in those areas to minimise the impact (based on some kind of cost-benefit analysis).
I am generally strongly in favour of token holders deciding on their own what is best for the network and voting with their tokens to express their opinions.
To answer some comments from others in this thread regarding ChaosDAO, which is, of course, always the villain in the story, because we sometimes dare to vote NAY.
Regarding the comment that ChaosDAO does not represent legitimate claims, and does not value democratic practices:
- I don’t think ChaosDAO has made any claims about this referendum, it simply voted NAY. NAY votes maintain the status quo, which is a safe option.
- OpenGov is not democratic; it is not a 1 person 1 vote system. There are many things that could be democratic, for example, if one person at random became the president of a country every day, you could argue that it is democratic, as everyone has their fair chance at having their voice heard. OpenGov, you could argue, is plutocratic, where the amount of “say” that you have is determined by the capital that you have invested into the network’s token. This has been true since day 1, and I have personally created educational content for others to copy the ChaosDAO model and actively assisted people in copying it.
Regarding being a single actor:
- This is obviously a complete falsehood, as there are many members who are doxxed, have had interviews, etc., who are obviously distinct individual members of ChaosDAO
- The sockpuppets should make their mind up regarding which angle they want to take, either it’s one person, or we control everything apparently, lmao.
There are some anonymous sock puppet accounts in this thread implying that ChaosDAO is close to the web3foundation, and even that ChaosDAO is a proxy of the web3foundation:
-
I would say that ChaosDAO does not agree with every move the web3foundation does, similarly to how I believe that the web3foundation does not agree with every move that ChaosDAO does. If memory serves me well, Bill has said something to this regard somewhere before. There is, however, at least from the ChaosDAO side, a pretty sizeable degree of respect towards the web3foundation and their efforts to try to progress Polkadot, Kusama, and web3 as a whole – even if at times some of our members express frustration at some individual decisions. This is completely normal, and I would say that you would be hard pressed to find an organisation, or even an individual, that you agree with their actions 100% of the time. The key here is to try to make sure that emotions do not get the better of you, and you actually present valid alternatives to try to create a better path forward.
-
There have been a handful of current/former W3F people in ChaosDAO at various times since 2021. For the most part, they have not been very active (in a few cases, they wrote only a couple of messages, mainly links to interesting things). Currently, to the best of my knowledge, nobody from the web3foundation is a member of ChaosDAO. We have at times in the past reached out to certain people in the web3foundation to ask if they would like to be invited, but they often decline.
Overall, due to ChaosDAO’s voting power, which has been gathered over a really long period of time, and our decision to vote NAY on many referendums of varying scope, means that we will likely never be able to escape criticism or attacks from usually anonymous sockpuppet accounts (who were likely involved in said referendums). This is something that we have grown to accept. In many cases these actors are using pretty common tactics, which unfortunately are prevalent in real-world politics too, to try to demonise people that they disagree with, often without being grounded in reality at all.
To @hantoniu-codeberg again – if the referendum passes because token holders believe it is the best way forward, that’s great. If it doesn’t, then the OP should attempt to gather more input, from w3f for example, and go again – nothing stops them from resubmitting it 
Same question I made on your X comment:
How many economists are there in the W3F ?
I am really interested in understanding how this is playing out, because until now I can count only one.
And with @alice_und_bob we discussed addressing economic content, where I would love to discuss certain important topics with other people that are interested in the economic dimension of “web3”. From my perspective and work, there’s too much to understand on how the future will play out from this economic analysis which I personally have been actively participating in, with very incipient and in some cases no valid counterparts to discuss topics as important as Market Structure, for example.
I insist, the understanding on how the future will play out will come from understanding the arguments for the three fundamental economic questions:
What, how and for whom to produce ?
We are still waiting for a clear explanation from the foundations and ChaosDAO about their vision for Kusama…
How will the economic problems be solved? How will devaluation be stopped? How will incentives be created?
Unfortunately, simply saying no or voting no is not enough and does not meet any standard. You are obliged to justify your position.
This is an interesting idea, but I would like to see it reviewed more in-depth by economists before offering support.
I have not seen any comments or analysis of that yet.
Two days left. Here’s where I land.
The process worked. This started as an RFC from a new account. Over four weeks, the thread corrected a data error, improved the projections, separated concerns
into two complementary proposals, and attracted input from validators, developers, governance participants, and W3F. That’s governance functioning. Whatever
happens with the vote, this thread is proof that Kusama’s forum can produce substantive policy discussion.
Passing isn’t the finish line. A WFC is a signal. If 627 passes, there’s still development work, code review, and a Root referendum ahead. Multiple checkpoints, each with its own scrutiny. Nobody wakes up to new tokenomics on January 30th.
These parameters are not permanent. This is the part I want to stress most. Unlike a hard cap — which encodes a number and walks away — burn rates are designed
to be reviewed and adjusted. If 5% base inflation turns out to be too aggressive, governance can raise it. If the treasury floor needs to move, governance can
move it. I’d go further: these parameters should be reviewed on a regular basis against real network data. That’s not a weakness of the proposal. That’s the point.
The status quo isn’t neutral. Kusama inflation is 7.82%. That’s not “safe” — it’s an active choice. Every epoch that passes at current rates dilutes holders and drains the treasury into a validator set sized for a network ten times more active. Voting Nay doesn’t preserve things as they are. It preserves a trajectory.
This is what Kusama is for. Polkadot chose a hard cap. That’s their path. Kusama’s purpose — from day one — has been to experiment, to test, to move first.
Burns are proven at scale by Ethereum. The math is on-chain and verifiable. The parameters are adjustable. The risk is bounded. If not this, on this network, then what are we doing here?
I’m looking forward to @olanod‘s complementary proposal on validator and core reduction. Together, these address both sides of Kusama’s economics — supply and cost. There’s a path forward here.
Thanks to everyone who engaged in this thread — supporters, critics, and everyone in between. This is how it’s supposed to work.
Referendum 627: [link]
W3F posted a formal statement on Subsquare today: https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/627#7. They’ve indicated they cannot support the proposal without broader stakeholder and economist engagement.
A few thoughts.
On process: This thread has been open for four weeks. The proposal was corrected, refined, and split into complementary pieces based on public feedback. W3F’s first substantive engagement came today — on the final day of voting — to say no. I don’t say this to attack W3F. I say it because “more discussion needed” rings differently when the discussion has been happening in the open this entire time.
On the path forward: W3F’s comment suggests emailing gov@web3.foundation. I’ll be direct: I don’t do email or DMs. This isn’t stubbornness — it’s a principle. Every communication I have in this ecosystem happens in public, where it can be scrutinized, challenged, and built upon. If there’s a formal process for requesting economist review that works through public channels, I’m happy to follow it.
So I’ll ask directly: What would it take? What does W3F need to see to support tokenomics reform on Kusama? If the answer is “formal economist review,” what’s the process to request one? I’m not asking for a guarantee — I’m asking for a door.
On this referendum: The math is difficult. Recovery would require significant movement in the time remaining. We’ll see.
On what comes next: People didn’t end up in Kusama by accident. Most of us are here because we believe in something — experimentation, sovereignty, building in the open. That alignment is valuable. What’s missing is a place where likeminded people can find each other, collaborate, and build together without our own economics working against us. That’s what this is about. Not one referendum — the longer project of making Kusama a place where that energy can thrive instead of slowly bleeding out.
This proposal has been refined three times based on public feedback. I’m happy to keep working on it — but what’s needed now isn’t another revision. It’s the door I mentioned above. A path to the review that would satisfy the concerns raised. That’s what I’m asking for.
In the meantime, I’ll support @olanod’s upcoming proposal on validator and core reduction. The work continues.
I would like to thank the W3F for its statement. It is a good sign that open communication is being emphasized.
Regarding the WFC itself: Before we involve economists, I suggest that we put forward several proposals for consideration, which will then be reviewed.
- Proposal 1: with maximum supply and halving
- Proposal 2: with burns
- Proposal 3: combination of 1 and 2
If W3F says that feedback from economic researchers is necessary, that is reasonable. But then why did W3F not do this themselves from the start. They lead this ecosystem. Why has the network value measured by market cap fallen so badly. They have not created or proven any real economic impact yet, but they ask the community to deliver that impact.
From my point of view, when the economic situation is already this broken, changing something is better than doing nothing.
Usage sets the price, so increase that and voila.
More deployments in KSM should be the thing to look for, you can change the economic engine but the only thing that will make Kusama fly is usage. we can change the Validator count etc… al solutions that will deliver sooner or later the same result.
Usage, usage, usage. Hope to see a Kusama that is all about running experiments and discovering new ways of doing things at scale on a production platform.
Open system like this are hard to fund, because the ownership part of things, VC expect 10x in 5 years, open system take longer to populate through marketing.
I really don’t want to see Web3 Foundation (W3F) lagging behind the community—not just in this one issue, but across the board, including the research they’re doing.
A W3F scientist is still clinging to his 1KV dream (pushing for 1000 validators), seemingly prioritizing publishable academic papers over practical, real-world fixes that the ecosystem desperately needs right now.
Fully agree with you, instead of saving or defense, try take risk and makes it growth
Absolutely. Unless, of course, you were given millions of KSM as a gift, sold your staking rewards, prevented inflation from falling, and shorted the price… That’s my guess as to why ‘the cartel’ can’t come up with anything but excuses and evasions.
I would wholeheartedly agree with that statement.
Look at Polkadot as a whole, then compare that to Kusama? The sentiment towards Polkadot (even imo) is that it is dead in the water. Kusama? It’s worthless. Why even bother when Polkadot isn’t being used?
Is W3F chiming in now that their fabled project is on the road to zero? Look at coretime sales, look at what Polkadot even offers, who actually uses it, what is there to even use? Looking like a ghost chain more and more every day.