[Poll] Should Firo have a tail emission?

I think we should keep fixed supply. FIRO is gem, It`s like BTC but private.
Privacy is the only thing that is missing in BTC, and FIRO fixed it in a best unique way.

Tail emission is not necessary at this moment IMHO.
If it would be mandatory, team should do hardfork and keep 2 different branches:

  1. FIRO-Classic with fixed supply
  2. FIRO-Tail with tail emission.
1 Like

thats a horrible idea, a split would most likly kill FIRO :sweat_smile:

But im also a big fan of a hard cap without tail emission. For example, im not buying monero because they do not have a hard cap (and cause you can`t audit their supply).

I do understand the problem, especially for masternode holders, cause they don`t get anything after all mining is done.

i guess the only way without inflating the supply would be to work with the transaction fees. For example 50% of the transactions fees goes to the miners, 50% is shared by all masternodes.

For sure, this would only work if FIRO get used. If there will be no interest in privacy in the next ~10 years, well, FIRO will die anyway imho…

the good thing is, we have some more years to see how it will evolve.

@bma @michivollgas hard cap privacy coin already have zcash & some others and does not mitigate the security budget problem

with Firo such low market value along with Zcash

on-chain fees generation with Shielded Assets or Spark Assets
on-chain fees with Inheritances
on-chain fees with Wrapped coins, Memes coins
on-chain fees with unregulated stable-coins (just maybe lol)
on-chain fees with shielded or spark voting
on-chain fees with shielded or spark multisig support & usage

those are the only options left

so small 0.4 tail emission gives Firo extra defense

Firo can compete with Zcash & others

Hi all,

I am new to the forum but have been holding firo for a while now.

TLDR: I think I am, reluctantly, in favour of tail emissions.

I prefer the idea that supply is fixed but it seems to me that without the guarantee of security/stablility in the network the value of the coin/project risks becoming worthless. I think on balance I prefer certainty in this regard.

I have done a small amount of mining in the past and now operate a masternode. These things are not free to do and need to be always online so it seems to me that some sort of relatively stable incentive is required else we risk the project running on charity. Something I think will be unsustainable in the longer term. I also think that these activities can help bring usage and visibility too so maybe that should be part of the consideration.

That said I do think that the inflation needs to be low since it will go on ad infinitum. 2% might be too high. I think that is only around 36 years to halve the real value and this puts us in targetted (I know not real) fiat territory. They seem to inevitably fail because of this. :slight_smile:


1 Like

It’s absolutely the true :
“Privacy is the only thing that is missing in BTC, and FIRO fixed it in a best unique way.
Tail emission is not necessary at this moment IMHO:”

If you want a tail emission, then a unlimited supply, you will kill Firo !


As Michael Dell put it on X these days:

“Scarcity creates value”

Tail Emission breaks Scarcity. Even 2% is quite high, like savagemindz pointed out, 50% in ~35 years, thats the opposite of Scarcity and most likly destroy the value of the coin. Not only cause of constant inflation, also because when it is changed once, you never know if it will get changed in the future.

Tail Emission is the easy way to fix the problem. the fiat moneyprinter way.

The hard way is the Bitcoin Core way. Relying purly on fees. For sure, we need way more fees than today, we need real usage of the chain. services people are willing to pay for, like spats assets, mby a private stablecoin, i don`t know.

Good thing is, security will not get undermined in the next months or even years, we have time for this decission und can vote for tail emission if there is no other solutions found.


Exactly this! Totally agree.

1 Like

Agree! Why wait when you can do it now. The technical debt just keeps pilling up otherwise. I rather deal with limitation, improvements etc now rather than later.

1 Like

Cause we might find some other solutions before rushing to give up one of the most important attributes of Cryptocurrencies? Maybe.

While there is strong support for the implementation of tail emissions, I have a feeling it would fracture the community.

To be clear a lot of the arguments against tail emission in my opinion are based on wrong assumptions as to what small inflation would do given that most coins actually have much higher supply inflation rates and gold itself has a higher inflation rate.

As there is no urgency to visit this and those dissenting feel strongly about it, I am proposing we revisit this at a later juncture and deal with the bigger issues at hand.

Please feel free to continue to leave feedback or if the community feels we really need to deal with this now.


1 Like

we cannot delay an important feature such as tail emission (which will give positive market signal & miner support) given its vast popularity

we need to address the misinformation about tail emission NOW

Firo need Tail Emission as last defense mechanism (given its current low value)

Firo community need to be address regarding lack of economic understanding and main culprit of its decision making over the years and its current coin value

Firo community could easily mitigated such an important monetary attack vector as a privacy coin by Tail Emission

Their is already 21 mill zcash with its low value compare to monero
why would firo try to be another zcash
Instead of a True Competition of Privacy Coins

1 Like

may i ask you the question if you are familiar with mises, rothbard and hayek?


Read through all the posts leading to these polls and my gut feeling is let’s stick with scarcity and the original economics for which I joined in 2018. however Reuben and team are much closer to the project so followed their vote here.

1 Like

@michivollgas yes and what do those 3 Austrian Economist like Gold even with its infinite supply because someone still have to do work to get that gold and its fair

Yes, but only enough to prevent the collapse of the network. I believe the emission rate should be variable, but only in one direction: if the price increases, emissions should be lowered. If the price decreases, there should be a maximum ceiling of 2%. The specifics of how the emission rate varies can be decided through a vote later.


The subject of this topic concerns the end of the block reward. But that will only happen in 125 years.
In less than 10 years, ZCoin, then Firo, have already completely changed their tokenomics, for example by moving from PoW to a mixed PoW/MN system. There is no point in making changes today for what could be a problem 125 years from now.
On the other hand, there is a real problem that must be solved today: the end of the Firo price drop!
And tail iemission is a decision that will only accelerate this price drop.


Yes , exactly , it’s not a problem for the moment tail emission!
But to happen that , we need as a community to demonstrate and advertise, to close friends and fam more, on what they should know to start getting involved with crypto usage generally and explain them with simple words the benefits of privacy, what is the effort to use Firo, as investment firstly and as in real-life secondly.
Imo I believe to solve that now with tail emission and infinite supply is void.

1 Like

Totally agree. Saying its not a problem for now or we might find other solution is like putting our head into the ground. If so many smart people haven’t found a solution until now i doubt there will be other solutions. Plus why wait!
The scarcity is also a non issue as long as emission is controlled like Monero.

1 Like

I don’t put my head in the ground !
I put things into perspective and think: would you rather destroy Firo today or rather take the risk of a possible problem in 125 years?
The solution to Firo’s price falling isn’t even more money creation. Money creation is the problem because it dilutes the value.
Wanting more monetary creation means generating more speculation… downwards.
Wanting a tail emission is creating a problem immediately, it is not preventing it from happening perhaps in 125 years.
When comparing with Monero, Firo does not aim to copy Monero: Firo/ZCoin was created to be more efficient than Monero.
In any case, your comparison with Monero is sterile: I could tell you that Bitcoin has no tail emission and I hope that you will agree that nothing is more solid than Bitcoin.