Because to attract new people and new companies and spur growth those new people need to believe they will benefit from it financially. They buy a bag then build and invest time and energy into improving the ecosystem.
Or we can just be a fringe project that attracts no big investment.
This has nothing to do with the forum being a place to share opinions. It is what is used to be. Now itâs everyoneâs personal place to insult and judge. All weâre doing is circle jerking in a far from constructive discussion. Do you think the team will actually read through all the above? I donât think so. These insults are preventing team members from engaging with us and if they do weâre burning them out. Both are extremely destructive for the long term health of the project.
I donât think this is true
Itâs a lot of people who suddenly saw something in a publication that isnât even marked as changed with elements that clearly only aim for token price effect and have nothing to do with the fundamentals of the networkâŚ
Itâs not about judging or insulting but about feeling betrayed and asking for an explanation from most of what I readâŚ
Is it changed? Do we know for a fact it wasnât in at introduction? Iâm not 100% sure. I think it changed, but we do not know for sure, do we?
And why cant this simply be a question a team member can answer? Since the topic opened with this exact question we had 80 replies, none of which from a team member and also none answering the initial question.
Yes it is changed!
Donât try to plot us as idiots
I actually find the whole discussion healthy, all the critical opinions valid, and, on the other hand, your periodical attempts at babysitting/patronizing the team offensive both towards the community and the team. Also disruptive to the discussions. You come across as obsessed with public image at the cost of reality and authenticity.
I know you mean well, but itâs cringe and dishonest. I also realize this will get taken down in seconds, as itâs seemingly personal, but it is really not. Your shtick perfectly demonstrates what I think is a sickly faux positivity, just in the most extreme shape. I agree with taking my post down though, for the PR reasons, lol.
As Jim keeps telling us the value is the data. And that will be reflected in the price as the network gains adoption.
This burn procedure just going to reduce the token by huge amounts.
The token is reused over and over again constantly.
People get token to upload
people pay node operators and chuck 2% into the firepit
node operators sell or use their tokens to the people wanting to upload
rinse and repeat until there is no token left. 2% lost each cycle
And the tokens not suffering the 2% lost are the rich guys wanting this burn process.
Now when the network gets moving globally in a few years then we could see 20 to 50% turnover per month as people upload huge amounts of data, be it their movie archive, their backups, company backups, internet archive.
But anyone can do the maths and burning 2% of 20%-50% of 1.2 billion token each month will see total supply drop very fast. Remember its not 2% of total supply but 2% of the turnover. In one year could be 5 billion token even if total supply is 500 million. (Yes likely to be 2 to 4 billion per year when global) but the point is turn-over is not limited by total supply
Once the total supply drops by a significant amount and all the bag holders wanting this hold over 80% of the tokens then uploading will be forced to slow down due to lack of supply
Since when did it change? And how can we verify it changed? Was it changed recently and within a reasonable time for the team to announce it shortly? Or was it changed weeks ago?
I thought we were here to change things not have a rinse and repeat of the old big investors get rich by buying more?
I donât think your post should be taken down, I think what you say is fair. I donât agree with it, but I can see why you think that. But let me ask you one question. What was the last thing we actually discussed here in the forum in the way weâre discussing this 2% thing and actually managed to have the team make changed because of it? I donât see a team member engaging with us here, and I can see why they stay away. Doesnât that defeat the entire purpose of your public discussion? We can have 100% consensus as a community, but having the team on board and engaging is more important, right?
It takes money to change things. Anyone who holds the token benefits. Not only the rich, that seems a silly argument to me.
How much has it cost to get this far? How much more will it take to get anywhere near where we need to be?
Money bad is just an insane argument to me. We go nowhere without attracting investment.
This is a standard way to do it that is proven to work. All the worlds people need to eat.
The 2% burn has been there from when version 2.0 of the whitepaper was published. That is a long time ago..
Not sure if it was there in prior versions.
Anyway. Said my peace.
Love ya all even if we disagree, not going to burn bridges over this.
I am with the team on this one. 
I mean if you limit productivity to the team abiding by what the majority or the relevant portion want, then itâs unproductive, but there are many aspects of these debates that may be positive and hard to quantify.
I actually enjoyed reading most of this because people finally engaged without autopilot and discussed things freely. It felt chaotic, but it helped me realize certain possible upsides of the burn.
I donât know about the team, but if I was one of the devs, I would actually appreciate people get passionate over fundamentals instead of blindly accepting like a herd of sheep.
It all comes down to taste probably. (And respect to you for not freaking out over my confrontational post.)
It already was changed multiple times (most notably the supply reduction - but minor fixes too that didnât change the overall meaning) without explanation in advance 
a suddenly changing official document without a git style change log or any explanation by the team is part of the issue
What is version 2? You say it was part of the document with reduced total supply?
Funny if this and 18% royalty payment was overlooked all the time
I agree having this in git style version control is something we can request. Youâll have my full support here. But you still did not really answer the question, right? Was it changed and if so, when was it changed. First you mention you know with 100% certainty it was changed and then you say:
Iâm not here to pin you to making false statements, Iâm genuinely trying to figure out if we know for a fact it changed or if weâre making assumptions. As you can see, Iâm 100% onboard with making changes transparent and it should not change without proper announcement/explanation here on the forum. I would give them a week leeway though, which again makes it important for me to know when this changed. Still donât have an answer.
And just to add why I think itâs important that we know for a fact it changed before jumping to conclusions is because I donât see the 2% burn or the 18% happen with the current blockchain state of payments and fees included. It will only make payments more cost heavy while the team was actually looking into reducing the blockchain fee. I would be surprised if this has recently be adjusted in the tokenomics, and I would be even more surprised to see it introduced before the native token.
I remember when the white paper for launch was release that the royalty of 15% was done away with and the foundation holding the huge %age was the replacement.
@riddim you are right this is a change from that because it is now a different form of royalty of 18%? and the burn. Was that already in the document that many read, was it in the first release of this launch white paper, I doubt it since the royalty being removed was a huge thing
Oh Iâm absolutely sure it hasnât been there in the beginning and I have my doubts it is there for a long time but would assume it was added not long ago. (I didnât recognise it when they did reduce the total supply and I never heard of 18% (why 18?) not going to farmers but to a pool for bad times)
=)
I think @blvd just tried to heat up the discussion and I donât really care when it was added precisely - but that so many people are surprised and disappointed now could hint the addition wasnât accompanied by any announcement and done very recently =)