But if something is designed then it can be analysed. It is one network being analysed so its why its focused on analysing the design for that network
It’s too early to do this burn-in analysis. As you can see, 6 months after the network launch, this feature hasn’t been added, and may never be added. The fact that it’s planned for addition is a competitive advantage because it’s a good story in a world of competing autonomous networks.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
This is true.
Doesn’t stop analysis. Even if “social” component(s) exist.
Why do you feel I should stop this analysis?
Oh, I’m interested in your analysis. I’m pointing out other factors that I think are important in case you decide to expand your model, because right now, to me, your analysis paints a very wrong picture.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
1 Like
Of course it’s different in many ways! I am only pointing out some areas or similarity / analogy; you reject any similarity exists because there are many differences 
1 Like
I don’t think anyone said it is necessary.
All people are saying is that reducing supply over time would put upward pressure on the token price, all other things being equal, which is just basic economics.
A reduction in supply doesn’t create value; it divides value by a smaller number of units, putting upward presure on price.
1 Like
I think this is important to model / consider.
We don’t yet know what the ‘turnover’ of tokens for node payments will be, but you’re right that if it’s very high as a portion of token supply, that 2% per transaction burn could quickly mount up.
By token turnover, I mean the total Autonomi tokens used to pay for uploads in a given period of time, e.g. a year.
If turnover = 10% of total supply, a 2% burn would reduce total supply by 0.2% per year.
If turnover = 100% of total supply, a 2% burn would reduce suppl by 2% per year.
If turnover = 1000% of total supply, a 2% burn would reduce supply by 20% per year.
An annual 20% supply reduction after 5 years would see a 1.2bn supply fall to 393m tokens, which is pretty extreme (though nowhere near what would cause issues of token availability given huge divisibility).
If it did turn out to be very high turnover, I think putting a cap on any burn would be sensible, e.g. if supply gets to 600m, no more burn (50% burn cap like BNB).
Again, the burn doesn’t create value but divides the value by a smaller number of tokens, so prioritising creating value in the first place is far more important.
2 Likes
The issue here is that uploads is not really related to current total-supply. There maybe some relation due to price increasing over time, but there is also potential cost in tokens per records increase too (or decrease)
But if we say uploads will continue at approx the same rate even with those factors because adoption increases each year. Then your example 20% is 240 million tokens per year every one of those 5 years. The 2% is on tokens used for uploads and not related to current-total supply but is related directly to tokens used for uploads.
1 Like
There are also other issues / unclarities about this 2% burn and token reserve.
It’s difficult to know though, is the scheme presented in the whitepaper 2.0 just a sketch, or is it meant to somewhat definitive plan.
Anyway, a couple of points:
Let’s say the 10% reserve, a.k.a 120M tokens has been filled. Then the 18% reserve “tax” ends and 2% burn starts. Is the change a sudden, clear cut drop of “tax” from 18% to 2%? That would incentivize to diminsh uploading to the end of the reserve collection, because a cheaper price is looming around the corner.
When the reserve is at 10% a.k.a 120M tokens, and the burn begins, the 10% reserve may soon be 11%, 15%, 20%… 90% of the remaining tokens. Is that what is intended? Or are some of the 120M tokens going to be removed from the reserve so that it stays at 10%? If so, what is done to those extra tokens?
What if some of the 10% reserve is used and it needs to be filled again. Does the 18% tax kick in again, and does it kick in suddenly or gradually? Is the aim of 10% reserve going to be 10% of the original token amount, or current amount after some of the tokens have been burnt by the 2% fee?
2 Likes
Either way, if the concern is the burn causing more than a desirable amount of token supply reduction, a cap on the maximum quantity of token burned would fix that issue.
I hope it’s a sketch. The team have been pretty clear that tokenomics isn’t their core focus at the moment & it’s never had much public discussion around it, so it seems to be on the back burner.
At the time of ‘Whitepaper v2’, some specific focus was put on tokenomics to clarify the token supply reduction and flesh out the emissions, network node reserve, and burn concepts.
No further comment was given from the team when questions arose, so I expect it is just not the focus and will be up for discussion ahead of implementation.
Interesting thought. Maybe the 2% burn could be a 1.8% ‘tax’ on uploads + a corresponding burn of 0.2% of the transaction amount from the Network Node Reserve to keep it at 10%… or just let it grow in proportion of the total supply.
To be honest, the node reserve is the bigger deal than the burn in my view. A potential flip-flopping between an 18% and 2% ‘tax’ on transactions, plus possible payouts from the reserve make this a potentially very disruptive system.
I asked a bunch of related questions at the time, as so much was left undefined / unspecified. No answers were given: Updated White Paper: Published to View - #102 by DavidMc0
I didn’t chase up for a response as I figured the team was clear tokenomics were not a focus & I assumed it’d come up for discussion ahead of implementation.
I’ve always felt that the economics of the network are critical in the network’s success, so I wish it had some steady low-level constant attention from the team and community, but at least this discussion is happening in the community now, probably well ahead of any implementation (which I hope looks a lot different to the plan in the white paper!).
1 Like
(post deleted by author)
1 Like
Maybe if you (or me, or someone…) would now ask just one specific question about the possible flip flopping on Discord, maybe in the “General support” category, we might get an answer and start a conversation.
If we would try to start the discussion by presenting all the observations we have done, it might be too overwhelming for anyone on the team to take action on it.
1 Like
Yeah.
For now a simple question for the AMA asking about the node reserve and burn mechanism might do the job to calm people’s nerves.
E.g: “Regarding the Network Node Reserve and burn mechanisms outlined in the whitepaper; is there expected to be room for discussion of community concerns and refinement of the plans ahead of any implementation?“
I’ll submit something like that, and feel free to do similar or better 
1 Like
Too much to read above, so skipped from OP to here.
@neo I’ve studied a lot of economics. What I can tell you is there is no means to disambiguate burning, token price, and scarcity (demand/supply). It is demand that drives price - not scarcity. There are scarce things in the world that have next to zero demand and so have no value.
Further, there is no way to predict demand. There are many factors that go into decisions and many of these decisions are not going to have an argument for buying or selling which all share/agree upon.
If there is already as asset however that has a market value and then there is news that something is going to impact it’s scarcity, then that generally drives people to buy or sell it as a herd reaction. The degree of reaction is likely proportional to the hype surrounding the news. However, what is the direction of the heard overall? No matter the news (more scarce or less scarce), the herd can move in either directions - buy or sell.
Consider what I posted in What’s up today a bit ago:
Will people go out and buy more coffee due to news that it’s getting more scarce? Probably. How many will give up coffee in favor of tea or caffeine patches instead? Or maybe jump straight to cocaine - cause the worlds going to shite - so why not? … as you might imagine the number of possibilities here are endless and so predicting price is not really possible.
1 Like
Can someone explain me why any arbitrary % of transaction fees burning is a problem at all? When I am uploading and 2% are burned, it is 2% tax. I as an uploader have to pay 2% more than what would be the costs usually. I have to use fiat to buy AUTONOMI token, and instantly spend it.
So 2% burn is 2% tax. Not a big deal. If we pick 50% burn, than it is 50% tax. Still not a big deal.
In the opposite direction, we have emissions, emissions are tax on non uploaders. It taxes money from everyone else all the token holders are paying via inflation to support cheaper uploads than what is the real cost. Pure social engineering.
The fact that we have divisibility of the coins it does not matter whether there is 1 billion, 100 billion or only one coin in circulation. What matters is total market cap. The cost of upload is always always FIAT related. Price of upload is basically determined by fiat value of the hardware costs. If price of coin jumps, there are larger reward, more hardware is added, price of upload in ANT terms lowers. Not a big deal. I don’t see a problem, we can have 50% of fees burned, and still thanks to divisibility have a working network and working price discovery. If the supply burns too fast, we can always add more zeroes, by converting 1 Autonomi token to 100000000 AUTONOMI version 2.
Right now we have 90%+ tax anyway, it is Arbitrum transaction fee tax. Lets introduce prepaid credit or native currency and cut this Arbitrum fee tax, and we can have 90% fee burn in Autonomi. Instead of paying to Arbitrum network in fees, just burn that cost in Autonomi token 
The only problem with burn is, that it is deflationary and enriches holders. Which is actually very important. We need holders, we need price pump, we need large market cap to make the network as secure as possible. If this is the easiest way, lets make the burn 20% or more.
1 Like
But the counter argument against that is why have the total supply at the amount it is. Just start it off at the desired amount.
If the burn was at a nominal 0.06% (as per one of Dimitar’s examples) of typical fees other blockchains charge (say 0.1%) then the burn would not be an issue in relation to the total-supply drying up to the point of stifling uploads. That would be 0.0000006 of each upload transaction instead of 0.02, and for a global network going global then we’d still have 100’s of years before it reduces to a dangerous level. I doubt very much in 100 years Autonomi will exist in its current form nor using its economics.
For the purpose of analysing potential problems we have to assume the good success (or bad) situations to determine if there is a flaw. In the case of bad then the network isn’t used and thus not worth considering. But for good success then its the world using Autonomi as that is what it is designed for.
Test the design criteria. Also remember for success people have to be able to upload, so the equation of token-price * token-store-cost has to be within the bounds of what people are willing to pay. And that is independent of the other uses for Autonomi since nodes on a global scale will only exist if people are uploading which requires affordable/desirable-price
That is what I was thinking in the first place and the data supplied has basically supported that with maybe for a desirable coin then scarcity has a small %age effect in the short term.
Its pretty simple, if we take the case of the network successfully being used by the world, the price * token-cost-per-record is affordable and desirable then there will be upto 7 billion people storing data, be it photos, social media posts (records), backups, movie libraries, and so on. Thus it is not unreasonable that in one year each people will use anywhere from one token to 100’s a year.
This means that the token turnover could be, for a truly successful network, be anywhere from 1 billion to 10’s of billions of tokens per year. And this is not going to happen in a few years but maybe after 10 years it could if successful. Thus 2% of 1 billion is 20 million but could be a lot higher like 200 million if 10 billion tokens are spent to upload data per year.
Considering there is only 1200 million tokens to start with then the 2% burn can cause problems of reducing the total-supply to zero sometime in the future and not too far away.
Remember this burn design is 2% of the whole upload spend, not of some fee. And uploads are only affected by available token to use and not total-supply. Once available-token is nearing total-supply then it affects uploading no matter how divisible, and once there is less total-supply then what people want to upload then its a bigger problem. Price going up will not save this, maybe slow it down, but once it gets too high then people will not be able to afford uploading, then node operators will leave since uploading reduces and income drops. It will be a death spiral.
Now if unsuccessful or remains a nerd network then its fine, but this is for an analysis of a design wise successful global network used by everyone.
2 Likes
Another thing to consider in your model. In a number of cryptocurrencies, a large percentage of tokens have not been in circulation for years. In Bitcoin, for example, in the last 12 months, only 30% of all Bitcoin has been in circulation. If this is applied to Autonomi, then these 2% burn will only be from the circulating tokens. Which in practice can have the effect of burning 6% if the entire supply is in circulation.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
2 Likes
Yes, I have taken that into account in my thinking
Its why I refer to circulating or available supply as opposed to total-supply in many places. Just gets so wordy if I keep adding in tokens held and/or lost …
Its also a critical part of the analysis because once the desired turnover amounts exceed available supply (as opposed to total-supply) the uploads will be slowed down due to delays in getting token.
The whole issue occurs because of the extreme high rate of burn compared to all other examples of continuous burn in blockchains. Your example as over 5000 times and lot higher for the example of 0.06% of fees which would be over 10000 times smaller than proposed by autonomi WP
To be fair, once the total-supply drops enough, people holding would start selling because they would fear missing out once they see the writing on the wall of a death spiral of token supply and once dead their holdings are worthless
2 Likes
What is current total supply?
Is the network 100% stable? Meaning not possible to lose data.
Can the network survive a reboot? Meaning, all nodes shutdown, then come back online and no data is lost.
What is the total quantity of ant to be given out to shareholders, maidholders, loan holders, bnkf, etc?
1 Like
1.2 Billion, burn does not seem to be setup yet and only would come into effect once the reserve is at 10% (120 million tokens). But neither seem to be in place yet
Its like proving the negative. Anyhow no one is reporting lost data from launch to now. Sometimes seemed to have lost something, but the data does appear again on retry to get it. Mostly associated with bugs interfering and these seem to have been fixed.
Unknown. The nodes can survive a restart of the machine. But there are a number of variables like sequencing of nodes starting again could mean the nodes restarted first might ignore those starting up in a few hours since they did not respond. So its unknown as it has not been tested, even if the code is there to have it happen.
As of the last NFT release there is only the (e)MAID left to burn. Have a look at the burn address and see how many MAID has been burned. Its around 1/2 now. Some 100 million on last exchange cycle was burned and exchanged.
3 Likes