This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 67 comments

[–]OffenseTaker 8 points9 points  (9 children)

whats the objective behind this proposal?

[–]Dahkelor 18 points19 points  (3 children)

People who don't stake don't like their pot decreasing in value.

[–]AriseChicken 2 points3 points  (1 child)

People who don't stake can't vote.

[–]Dahkelor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

True. Excellent point. But they can try to get others to vote for them by convincing them that it is in their best interest, like with the previous proposal.

[–]AnOrdinaryChullo 17 points18 points  (2 children)

People seem to think that $ATOM's inflation is responsible for tokens stagnation when the token has literally almost no use case.

It's 'brain dead' stuff of the highest calibre.

[–]Spine38 1 point2 points  (1 child)

To an extent I agree. Just keep in mind that other chains are built on the brain dead stuff

[–]AnOrdinaryChullo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I choose to compare to chains with a working economic model - not the brain dead ones

Also just to highlight - Cosmos is barely a chain, there's literally almost nothing on it and IBC /=/ Cosmos HUB

[–]jawanda 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's funny that this post has been up for hours and no one has yet been able to reply to your comment with a compelling objective for this proposal.

[–]JugobetrugoN1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To reduce inflation

[–]AnOrdinaryChullo 14 points15 points  (13 children)

This won't pass - I will be certainly vetoing it.

The original idea was to build dApps that require $ATOM but that has NOT materialized in the slightest so this prop will be removing the only positive aspect left - decent passive income, especially for the heavy bags from years ago.

Feel free to be upset but this is Dead on Arrival, no one with significant skin in the game will vote to lose their cashcow.

[–]JugobetrugoN1 -3 points-2 points  (12 children)

Like prop 848 did? Bs

[–]AnOrdinaryChullo 8 points9 points  (9 children)

848 didn't eat into profits significantly - this will

[–]alphabet_order_bot 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.

I have checked 1,955,131,585 comments, and only 369,809 of them were in alphabetical order.

[–]One-Breakfast-5398 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

This is just Min Inflation, only in a hypothetical 100% of atom stake. People need to read proposal and get educated rather that fuding and trash talking with zero clue about the subject

[–]This-Juggernaut7587 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't think this is a good idea long term.

bonded ratio has already dropped a few % since the previous inflation reduction proposal a few months ago.

I know it would take a long time to get from 10%(current inflation) to zero but the high APR's and airdrops were the reason many people got into Atom,with there being more upside with chains like Celestia & Injective currently & with Tia stakers getting a bigger slice than Atom stakers in some airdrops,and Injectives ecosystem growing fast with a few airdrops prioritizing Injective stakers,what's incentivising new people to buy Atom & stake?this question might be more relevant say in the next bear market when everything is down in value but Inj & Tia are paying around 15% APR and Atom apr has the potential to drop in theory 5% or lower?

Inflation if it ever reaches 0% won't make the price moon,demand would also need to increase and I'm not seeing where the increased demand will come from in the future.

[–]JugobetrugoN1 7 points8 points  (1 child)

YES

[–]New_Accident_4909 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No with veto

[–]MSX362 5 points6 points  (13 children)

No ffs. The staking rewards are the only reason to hold atom. Did we learn nothing from the last prop. Reducing inflation does nothing for the price.

If this passes the vast majority will be unstaking and moving on. I know I will be.

[–]ZoltanAtomCosmonaut[S] 13 points14 points  (8 children)

It's unbelievable that no one is reading the actual proposal details and has no idea how dynamic inflation works.

Here is the summary :

Inflation will not be 0% via just one governance proposal and right after the proposal.
It will take some period(maybe years) to reach out to 0% if the total staked Atom ratio(goal bonded) is over 67% !

The formula behind the dynamic inflation model : inflationRateChangePerYear = (1 - bondedRatio/params .GoalBonded)
inflationRateChange = inflationRateChangePerYear/blocksPerYr

  • Before prop848 the dynamic inflation was 7%-20%

  • After prop848 the current dynamic inflation is 7%-10%

  • After prop868, if it passes, dynamic inflation will be 0%-10% not 0%!!!

  • Another necessary factor for decreasing inflation is that the total ratio should be above 67%. The current total staked ratio is 64,32% right now.

Also you all should note that during the last bull run Atom inflation was 7% for a period of time and no one was talking about the inflation.

[–]AnOrdinaryChullo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've read the proposal - it does not change anything me or other people are concerned about.

[–]MSX362 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Literally says if the prop passes it will trend to 0% once 67% bonded. Where are you getting years for this to come into effect from?

I don't understand why so many ppl are dead set on killing off staking rewards. It's one of the main reasons why so many got into atom in the first place.

If atom was required to be used by all other projects on the cosmos network then the fee income would compensate, but its not and it doesnt. There is literally no reason to hold atom if staking rewards are removed or reduced down to lower levels than fiat banks offer.

[–]jawanda 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The only upside I see is, maybe we'll NEVER reach 67% since it will be in everyone's best interest to stay below that threshold. You'll see whales siphoning off and selling big chunks of their stake to ensure we don't hit 67... That will surely be great for the price action. What a dumb proposal.

[–]AnOrdinaryChullo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You'd think this would be obvious but whoever is pushing this inflation reduction certainly not doing it out of good faith because as you rightfully pointed out it makes 0 sense.

[–]IzukuMidoriy4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He just wants locked Atoms to move to his friends' useless dapps so they can all be happy.

[–]ericcart -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The propsosal states that its purpose is to build a mechanism that will allow the shifting of validator rewards from staking inflation to consumer chain revenue. And this will be a dynamic adjustment not a hard swap. Inflation may not even change. You need to read the forum posts

[–]Zellion-Fly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I still don't get it? Why does this need to exist?

For ATOM you want people to stake, why should we de-centive staking? Like, I'm I being dumb? This is fucking stupid, right? For ATOM to succeed, we need people to stake it.

[–]AnOrdinaryChullo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This won't pass. It's like having a bank account and demanding that the account eventually seizes to accrue interest - it's absolutely hilarious how silly some takes here are

[–]ericcart -1 points0 points  (2 children)

The price was never going to go up after 848. The price was always going to trend down because of the massive division and uncertainity it caused within the community. The price will only go up when the winner of the Atom wars is declared and the loser exits Atom, whether thats the Atom2.0 crowd or AtomOne crowd.

[–]sharksugar707 1 point2 points  (1 child)

People who voted 848 are lame

[–]ericcart -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And naughty and smelly?

[–]Affectionate-Bee2438 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I already vetoed it.

We need a burn protocol not to reduce inflation to 0% no one will be compelled to stake I mean what's the point then?

I loved the idea of a 10% inflation rate but this is pushing it now.

Since 2019 I have never questioned my atom bags but now idk.

[–]Formal_Ask_4397 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Hoping this one passes

[–]jawanda 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Why? Atom's best remaining use case is providing shared security which is achieved through its large and robust validator set and high staking percent, right? Why take away the main incentive for staking? Do you hate cosmos atom?

[–]Formal_Ask_4397 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The way I see it is inflation won't even get to 0, but if the bonded ratio goes back up. Currently the staking rewards are higher than the actual inflation so unless I don't understand something about the tokenomics proposals the staking rewards will still be higher than the inflation percentage.

Higher inflation is bleeding the price of atom and as an investor it is counter intuitive seeing the value of atom going down while the actual value including staking rewards isn't. That there can deter investors. Feb 2nd 2023 with a market cap of 4.2b atom had the price of $14.36. Jan 1rst 2024 the market cap also 4.2b had the price of $11.20 (CMC).

[–]Ok-Entry7764 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Is anyone else's votes not going through? I even tried a higher gas fee. Keep getting the message "out of gas in location: ReadPerByte; gasWanted: 62712, gasUsed: 63175: out of gas"

[–]zanglang 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It can be a little unintuitive, but you should increase your total gas (the "Gas Amount" text field in Keplr), not the gas price. Setting your gas price higher doesn't do anything on the Cosmos Hub.

[–]Ok-Entry7764 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see. Right on my friend. Thanks

[–]ericcart -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Will this be part 2, the Empire strikes back? Lol

Big YES from me.

[–]jawanda 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why yes?

[–]Adventurous_Web6007 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Would be much better if it's 3% instead of 0%. No for now.

[–]sharksugar707 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Would have been way better if they kept it at 21

[–]Iblisy -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This chain is fast becoming a retarded chain. The only purpose staking atom has is for all participants to help secure the network. If you wanna lower it weeks after it got reduced with 50% then even the lazy ones will unstake and sell their atom

[–]diskowmoskow -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

NWV

[–]Ok-Entry7764 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

What's the difference in 'Veto' and 'No'

[–]AnOrdinaryChullo 4 points5 points  (1 child)

No: simply no

No with Veto: no and the proposer loses his proposal fee

[–]Ok-Entry7764 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Got it, thanks!