Discussion on Final Poll Options for Tokenomics and Block Division

Polls
1

Our other polls are still ongoing but as we are rapidly approaching the halving date, I am going to use this thread to guide the polling options for the final poll so that every major option , at least ones that people feel strongly about, is reflected in the final poll.

If you feel there’s an option that is missing (and you feel strongly about), then please post in this thread. If there is more than one person who feels that way, it will be a reflected option in the poll.

Once that is debated, I will post the finalized poll thread.

There will be two final polls, one for block division, and another for emission. While I understand the two questions may be inter-related in the sense that you may vote differently if the emission is different, it would be very hard to come up with a poll with that many variables that would make sense.

*This is just proposed voting options not the actual poll yet.

Proposed Block Division Poll Options

Option A: 50% Masternodes 25% Miners 15% Dev 10% Community (Status Quo)
Option B: 70% Masternodes 5% Miners 15% Dev 10% Community
Option C: 50% Masternodes 50% Miners

Any option which the community feels strongly about (propose in thread)?
Only suggestions where at least two community members chime in will be included:
Option D: 70% Masternodes 15% Miners 10% Dev 5% Community (@Zen and @norsegaud)
Option E: 70% Masternodes, 20% Miners, 10% Dev (@Mohammad and @luckyofstar)

Proposed Tokenomics Poll Options

Option A: Keep Bitcoin halving schedule (status quo). No tail emission

Option B: Keep Bitcoin emission schedule but instead of halving, smooth the curve out (more gradual reduction). No tail emission

Option C: Keep Bitcoin halving schedule. 1 FIRO tail emission (~1%)

Option D: Keep current emission of 6.25 FIRO/block (1,314,000 FIRO/year) until hit max supply 21.4 million. 1 FIRO tail emission.
*This completes distribution of supply in another 4-5 years before tail emission.

Option E: Option D but no tail emission. Transaction fees only
*Probably need merge mining/Proof of Stake or some other setup besides masternodes

Option F: Half as scheduled but keep emission of 3.125 FIRO/block (657,000 FIRO/year) until hit max supply of 21.4 million. 1 FIRO tail emission.

Option G: Option F but no tail emission. Transaction fees only.
*Probably need merge mining/Proof of Stake or some other setup besides masternodes

Any option which the community feels strongly about (propose in thread)?

The above options were guided by the current state of the polls:

Developer and Community Fund

Currently, we have a strong majority of extending the Developer Fund and some support for the Community Fund.
In favor of Developer Fund: 55%+29% = 84%
In favor of Community Fund: 29%+7% = 36%
In favor or abolishment of Developer and Community Fund: 7%

image
image691×529 64.6 KB

Emission Votes

We have a strong majority (64%) on keeping existing block reward (no reduction) with some support for maintaining the existing halving schedule or with some smoothing.

image
image691×493 60.7 KB

image
image702×381 44.6 KB

3 Likes
2

No 1 FIRO tail emission is too high

It should be 0.4 FIRO only

Only that makes economic sense
It cannot be higher than Monero and it cannot be lower then 0.4 FIRO

1 Like
3

I think option B is too caricatured: not enough for miners and too much for devs and CF.
I propose :

  • 70% Masternodes 20% Miners 10% Dev
    or (if you absolutely want the CF)
  • 70% Masternodes 15% Miners 10% Dev 5% Community
1 Like
4

What’s your basis that it’s too high? And why do you think 0.4 FIRO is the minimum? Would appreciate the logic on it. Monero’s block time is faster at 2 minutes vs ours at 2.5 minutes. They also had a much faster emission curve than us. 1 Firo/block works out to be around the same rate of emission.

2 Likes
5

Got it, need one more person to agree to this and we’ll add it to the list.

1 Like
6

As it seems majority doesn’t want community fund I am not going to add options with community fund. But it will be best to have this vote at time when we know for sure if Firo Community Fund exists or not.

Options I would like to see:

70% Masternodes, 5% Miners, 25% Dev
65% Masternodes, 10% Miners, 25% Dev

If there will be surplus of funds and enough reserve it could be used for promotion or community projects.

1 Like
7

I can get behind this.

2 Likes
8

I can also get behind this…

However, I would like to see what the Community Fund has actually done… I don’t think it’s very clear what benefit that fund has brought over the past few years.

2 Likes
9

I can not imagine how more inflation is good for the project if we want price go up we should decrease supply or just leave as bitcoin schedule plan if we want price to go up we need to decrease inflation rate lower than usd inflation so, at least 2% in current year but to keep current inflation rate and add tail emission to it is just insane move it will kill price.

3 Likes
10

I would suggest replace current emission rate which depend on bitcoin schedule with tail emission that make inflation on current supply do not exceed 2% for the current year and to give 70% for master nodes and 20% for miners and 10% for development and maintenance.please if someone consider my propose is good make sure to up vote my reply with like.

1 Like
11

Just a note that if that’s the current rate, development will effectively cease.

1 Like
12

This is a point which I understand given that I originally voted just for the Dev fund instead of maintaining the community fund, however it’s only because the community fund has been supporting core team shortfalls for a while.

When the price was higher, it supported audits, community managers and also still supports all our social graphics and the creation of Sparky. It also still supports the BEP20 Firo liquidity pool on BSC.

If we believe that Firo will be worth more in the future, having an independent fund that works without the core team would allow grants and other things that core team aren’t suited to do alone and hopefully would allow alternative approaches.

For e.g. the Sparky mascot was @Fiendish’s idea and while that is a small example, it’s a sign that more ppl outside the core can be helpful.

Another thing is that eventually it may make sense for the core team to cease to exist and just have the CFC handle the direction of funding once Firo is in a good state. This is because when doing feature or tech development, often some centralised decision making is required for efficiency but as we finish laying out the foundation of Firo, then it will benefit from more decentralised decision making.

While I don’t think the CFC in its current form and composition is able to do so, its part of a gradual movement to build a community led decision making body and when Firo recovers, it will have much more freedom and powers to explore directions that the core team may have overlooked.

This is not because core wants to step away but more for the long term resilience of the project that we want redundancy. If for some reason, core decision makers are targeted, there will be at least a separate body that can lead things.

So while CFC isn’t that useful now, it’s more of a long term thing.

5 Likes
13

This is not more inflation. It’s either current inflation or even with tail emission it’s like 10x less inflation than currently. Bitcoin has inflation too, as it’s not at 21 million yet for at least a hundred years. It’s inflation rate is currently is roughly where a tail emission would lie.

Masternode holders are currently the most loyal and dedicated and active community members we have and that’s one of the strongest arguments to have them involved and rewarded for supporting the network both from their infrastructure and also from them holding the coin.

In our stage of emission, having sellers is fine, but we should be now moving towards utility of the coin rather than just chasing fancy tech. This is why Monero despite having worse tech still is the largest privacy coin. We still have our exchange listings so we can still push for more utility for real world use.

6 Likes
14

In our stage of emission, having sellers is fine, but we should be now moving towards utility of the coin rather than just chasing fancy tech. This is why Monero despite having worse tech still is the largest privacy coin. We still have our exchange listings so we can still push for more utility for real world use.

To quickly add to that: utility is where I think the marketing is going wrong. Yes people care about privacy, and that’s fine to talk about on X once in a while, but what else can FIRO do and is it easy to use for the average person? As an example: I want to use FIRO instead of, for example, cashapp or Venmo. Additionally, are there integrations for other apps, lets say like Signal, that allow me to send FIRO? Those should be the places a community fund focuses on if it sticks around — building integrations.

2 Likes
15

Just a note that if that’s the current rate, development will effectively cease.

What is this in reply to? Can you clarify?

1 Like
16

This is in reply to @Mohammad’s suggestion to go with tail emission straight away and only 10% to development which is basically 1728 FIRO to the core team per month from the 16,000 FIRO/month we receive currently.

We cannot operate with 1728 FIRO per month and if such a drastic change would be made, the masternode infrastructure would also collapse unless we are 100% sure that reducing inflation rate would lead to a huge price spike (i doubt it would). I think it’s a very poorly thought out suggestion that over focuses on inflation rate without thinking of other consequences.

3 Likes
17

We can not also take chance by keep current inflation rate just to hope price will keep at current level I see even current price can not keep project development running but we know if we decrease inflation rate that would increase price mostly and then increase in price will compensate decreasing emission rate and we see it got very successful with Monero even when Binance delisted them and also other major exchanges their coin price is keep going up because their supply inflation rate is currently under 2%. I think we have to choose between keep current Bitcoin emission rate or change to Monero tail emission system. WE CAN NOT DO BOTH. I know we all are very afraid but all kind of money now is shrinking their supply and we have to flow with current situation and I see converting to Monero style will be very successful and the later months proved their emission was very successful.and if the percentages devoted to development is not enough we can move for maintenance mode for a while until situation changed and master nodes and miners will accommodate with the new situation whatever it is going to be.

1 Like
18

Any other final feedback for the polling options?

19

Could you please, post suggested poll options in the current topic or in a new topic to prepare and take community point of views about options that should be exist in the final poll before make the final poll topic.

20

Updated first post!

Remember, only if at least two community members with Trust Level 1 and above support an addition of an option, then it will be included. If not, it remains still as a proposal. Also to prevent spamming of too many options, it can’t be the same community member proposing and/or supporting more than two additional options.

Would appreciate proposal suggestions to be kept in the same format to make it easier to follow and paste. You can post your explanations/justifications after it!