And here is a link to the forum discussion about it. (Search didn’t find a mention of burn there.)
And here is a link to video record of White paper walkthrough session, to the point in time where they say that the variables of incentive reserve is still undecided. This video was uploaded on Dec 4th 2024, a day before the white paper was released. I’m not sure if the walkthrough session itself was on the same day or earlier. (Anyway, I didn’t see a mention about burn close to that timepoint.)
o gut,
i am not in the business of heating up discussions and have never had any sort of bad intention.
fyi, the 2% burn has been there since the first published version of V2 whitepaper.
Quoting release notes V2 “For ease of navigation, and to enable accurate tracking of all V2 updates, all non highlight text in black/grey, is original (taken directly from White Paper 1.0), all text highlighted in blue is new content, i.e. updated sections and information. Please note: new charts are only signposted via a blue highlighted heading/title and while some new mathematical formulas are on a plain background they are all ‘topped and tailed’ with highlighted (blue) text.”
Burn section is in blue.
It was mentioned in V1 there would be a burning mechanism for uploading, just not specified as 2%.
quote V1 ”Furthermore, the data payments are designed to include a burn mechanism, through which a portion of the data payment can be permanently eliminated if necessary to manage the token supply as the Network matures.”
Searching for 82% / 18% should return anything if it was there before… It’s such strangely specific numbers that are meant to look carefully calculated…
Anyway - I’ll be out of this now - thanks for the info @blvd if you’re right that really would be funny that it was overlooked for so long…
… I don’t like this concept and very much disagree with the decision if this already is a final decision - I’ll probably move over to one of @Dimitar s many network with native token and without burn then at some point but for now this still is the best deal we get to test the overall concept I guess =D
Ps: yes @blvd I think you really are right there and it has been there all along for many months now I never would have expected this to be overlooked by me and others
If the walkthrough was on the previous day of the release, folks maybe didn’t go through the actual white paper so closely. Especially economics, because it’s quite thick part and you might expect the burn mentioned in the walkthrough.
If the 2% went to help the foundation then this would be a huge boost to the foundation and solve the argument that burn helps the foundation because it makes their remain token more valuable. But at the expense of 15 to 20 years down the track only bag holders have token
The more coin the foundation holds in its treasury (from this point on) the worse for the longevity of the project, both price wise and dev. wise. There’s already an extreme imbalance in regards to token distribution.
It’s not normal for a foundation to hold such pre-mine percentages, it just isn’t. Now if, lets say, there was already sustained upward price pressure (escape velocity), you’re right, it would help those 2% would end up in the foundations hands.
This is not the case however. These huge foundation percentages make people not want to invest, it’s that simple.
Had a brief exchange about the maths of the 2% burn in Discord with @neo. Now I see the problem. Maybe we should open a new topic about the maths, @neo? Should you maybe do it, as I need to head away very soon, and you know your maths much better.
But I doubt the ones who need to understand the way this is being done and the nature of turn over not being related to total-supply until there isn’t enough token left to support such a turn-over.
The 2% reduction is not working in a way that it would be first 2% off from all the tokens, and then 2% of the tokens that were left from the previous 2% reduction. That would never go to zero. It is 2% of every data upload payment, that will not “self-adjust” in that way, but has a capacity to grind the whole token amount to zero
Or maybe I should repeat every 2 posts that they have the private key to the smart contract and if Neo’s concern turns out to be true, the future US president will personally call the Foundation to tell them to stop the destruction of the tokens of humanity’s only autonomous network.
But why implement a flawed burn design in the first place
Design it so that the problems do not exist in the first place.
What if your water supply allowed a percentage of garbage per megalitre and then it never was removed. And by your logic then they have the ability to build a new dam so just build a new one when its too much garbage.
Why not just don’t let the garbage in the first place and haul the garbage to landfill instead
The specific method used does not hold up to maths when we plan for a global system used by upto 7 billion people regularly or even time to time
The flaw is that the 2% is of turn-over and turn-over each set period (eg quarter year) once the network is global can be more than a billion tokens. And 2 % of that each quarter is a lot. and as uploads grows that 50 million increases per quarter. Until that is total-supply drops too low to be able to sustain the upload rate.
but for now this still is the best deal we get to test the overall concept I guess =D
I never would have expected this to be overlooked by me and others