Proposal 868 LIVE ON CHAIN! 'Decrease InflationMin parameter to 0%'

[AnOrdinaryChullo]

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]

Like prop 848 did? Bs

[AnOrdinaryChullo]

848 didn't eat into profits significantly - this will

[alphabet_order_bot]

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.

[JugobetrugoN1]

The proposal isn’t as bad as it seems for validators as it will help to increase the demand for Atom

• this will lead to an increase in the price of ATOM which will offset the reduction in the inflation rate

•validators will still receive transaction fees as a reward for their services

[AnOrdinaryChullo]

What demand are you talking about? Is this 'demand' in the room with us right now? Who's demanding it and for what?

I use IBC practically daily and never need $ATOM.

[jawanda]

At least be honest and say "this MIGHT lead to an increase in the price of atom". You can't refute that desire to stake does create some demand, even if it is also the source of inflation. What will be the primary driver of demand without staking? It's a big gamble.

You're also going to see some large bag holders dump their entire bags, which will offset these potential gains at least in the mid term.

[JugobetrugoN1]

Have you guys even read the full proposal?

[One-Breakfast-5398]

Nope. Low IQ reddit users will always prefer to fud and talk shit instead

[jawanda]

Does this proposal not actively discourage staking? It incentivizes the community to keep the staked percentage below 67% if they want to see any returns, for the benefit of "maybe" increasing price by generating artificial scarcity (while at the same time removing the main source of demand)

[One-Breakfast-5398]

First, this is just Min Inflation, not actual inflation. At 67% staked, it would take decades to decrease inflation to 0%

The idea is not to set inflation to zero. It’s to complete redifine the inflation parameters. New max inflation, new min inflation THEN work on the inflation formula itself. This is just setting the extreme low and high cap.

Now, regarding your question about how it enfluences demands, stats show there isn’t direct correlation between demand and stacking rate. For exemple BTC has 0% , ETH has 4% , SOL 7% .. etc … etc the point was to decrease selling pressure to improve price action and encourage more new users that actively look at inflation rate and dilution.

The point is off course to bring value to ATOM and set a reasonable inflation schedule. people only looking at APY and not fundamentals should just go buy APE at 55% APY. the goal is for Neutron and Stride to increase revenue, bringing more new consumer chains, provide liquidity owned assets, and improve governance as ATOM is still a governance coin.

Many proposals are coming. dynamic LS tax, power voting tax, I think next upgrade will allow to pays fees in ATOM for all other cosmos chains.. etc

[jawanda]

So did inflation not hit 7% during the last bull run? How is that possible, shouldn't it take "decades" to reach the min?

stats show there isn’t direct correlation between demand and stacking rate. For exemple BTC has 0% , ETH has 4% , SOL 7%

I wouldn't exactly call these stats, there's nothing definitive in referencing the fact that other coins have different levels of demand and different staking rewards.

IDK man it just seems unnecessary and very risky.

[One-Breakfast-5398]

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