[Poll] Should Firo keep its halving schedule or should we revisit our emission curve?

Polls
1

Note for New Users in the forum: If you do not have the necessary Trust level, Please post in this thread to request for a Trust level upgrade. It is needed for you to place a vote

This poll is part of a series of polls to determine the monetary policy/tokenomics of Firo with the upcoming halving.

Don’t forget to vote in the other two polls:
[Poll] Should Firo have a tail emission?
[Poll] Should Firo continue its Development Fund and Community Fund?

We follow Bitcoin’s halving schedule which halves every 4 years.

While this served Bitcoin well and was suitable when there was no ecosystem or developed exchanges/markets at all, the industry has changed and most projects now have faster emission cycles or allocate much faster through airdrops. The halving schedule also forces a rather violent adjustment for masternodes and miners.

On a purely anecdoctal basis, newer coins (2016 and later) that have adopted similar halving or long emission cycles which are seen as more equitable have not generally performed well (Grin, Zcash, Beam) while those that have emitted the vast majority of their supply in the first two years and now rely mainly on tail emissions have done better. The argument is also that with developed exchanges/markets, extended emission cycles are not as important.

It is also questionable whether sudden halvings are the right way to go instead of more gradual decreases each year.

Whether we should change our emission cycle despite the benefits of doing so should be seriously considered as Firo has never changed its emission curve since its inception which is a strong case for it being sound money rather than arbitrarily changing it. We have only changed the division of the block reward.

This in my opinion is different than introducing a tail emission which is a minor change for the long term sustainability of the project.

If we choose to revisit the emission curve, there are a few possibilities:

  • Instead of halving, keep existing emission at 6.25 FIRO. This does stabilize existing ecosystem without rocking up masternodes or miners and keeps a linear emission until we hit the hard cap of 21.4 million and then move to tail emissions (if it is implemented). This is currently ~8+% p.a. inflation for the but this rate automatically reduces as it forms a smaller percentage of supply (linear emission). It also reduces the need to continuously re-evaluate block divisions.
  • Instead of halving, have more gradual reductions (yearly cuts?), this would allow steady adjustment of masternode/miner numbers but keep roughly the same rate of emission.
  • Something else entirely (write your ideas in the thread!)

This poll is not to decide the new emission curve but merely whether we should explore a new one or just keep the existing one. The discussion on this may take longer than the others so if the community decides to revisit the emission curve, it may not be implemented during the halving. Nevertheless I thought it would be good to give the community an opportunity to weigh in as a sentiment check.

Note: While optional, we strongly recommend writing the reason of how you voted to better understand the community sentiment.

Should Firo revisit its emission curve?
  • No, keep existing halvings similar to Bitcoin.
  • Yes, keep existing block reward with linear emission until supply cap hit and then tail emissions (if implemented). This amounts to a more accelerated emission cycle.
  • Yes, with a more gradual supply reduction every year.
  • Yes, something else. Write your idea in thread!
0 voters
2

I think keeping the current block reward would make sense (linear emission instead of halving) for the reasons outlined in Reuben’s post (more stability of ecosystem, no need to re-evaluate every 4 years). This will also provide more resources to continue current development work when it’s needed the most. If my calculations are correct - keeping the current emission schedule will mean that we will hit the 21.4M hard cap in about 5 years 9 months time (around March 2030) - with tail emissions beginning at that time if implemented. The drawback will be a much larger impact when we hit the cap (a drop from current block rewards to tail emissions rather than a gradual reduction every year or every 4 years) - but by then the community may be able to cover any development (maintenance) costs with donations - and we’ll have 5+ years to prepare for it.

2 Likes
3

I smooth emission curve by reducing a small amount of reward roughly every ~2 weeks (n blocks) would make changes gradual and not cause market spike due to halving.
The curve would really be a curve not a staircase like it is now.

2 Likes
4

I too agree with tiny small tail emission like Monero as Firo last line of Defense

1 Like
5

If we changed to tail emission we should ensure not more than 0.5% inflation yearly to keep the supply rare and push price up if we increased inflation more than 0.5% a year for ever I am afraid price will go below 1$ and it will be a disaster for the project.

4 Likes
6

If inflation go coin will collapse more than we are in.

4 Likes
7

yea tiny 0.4 firo is better

monero has 0.6 xmr

8

This makes sense. Seems like the best long-term option.

1 Like
9

We should 100% maintain the existing block reward and also implement a tail emission to ensure the project’s long-term security. Tail emission is a minor fee for the network’s stability and security. Just look at Bitcoiners on X and other places and their ongoing discussions about sustaining their network purely through transactions, we don’t want to face similar concerns in Firo.

2 Likes
10

I prefer to cancel the next halving and replace it with 2% tail emission so, instead of 4% inflation expected after next halving we guarantee 2% inflation in the current year and then it will be 1% next year. Then year after year inflation will keep go down more and more like monero and the keep coin value over years while ensure rewards for every block generated.

1 Like
11

If we look at all the options only 0.4 Firo Forever small Tail Emission makes strategic long term economic sense with Monero 0.6 XMR Tail Emission

12

Tricky, decision will significantly influence the number of masternodes and price I feel . How many MN do we target roughly to ensure security?

I was expecting the number of MN to go down significantly after halving as reward/hosting cost will be less attractive, maybe negative and more selling of MN to happen. Prepared to sell some myself unfortunately after 6 years…

Could be a healthy reset until the new equilibrium is found?

Voted for keeping current emission until hard cap of 21.4 m and then tail emissions.

Maybe less disruptive.
What I like about this suggestion its simple to explain and understand vs. a change (even small) every few weeks/ months etc.

1 Like
13

Given that each masternode quorum is 400 and we want to maintain several quorums, it would be good to maintain 2k ish. though it can probably drop more and still have decent security.

To clarify, we don’t have to have masternodes forever, other options are merge mining or some other consensus mechanism altogether but at this point in time, I don’t think we should mess with the consensus mechanism just because it’s a lot of work and technical debt and it’s actually working really well at the moment.

I still don’t believe in the security of pure PoW (esp since most smaller PoW coins without some checkpointing or max reorg system) have been 51% attacked before. The only way to do so is to either be the dominant coin in your particular hardware class or as others have, embrace ASICs.

1 Like
14

The emissions curve definitely needs to be reviewed.
My current opinion is to maintain the emission cycle like bitcoin and after the maximum supply is extracted go to tail emission.
Everything will depend on future events and technological advances.
The truth is that an analysis must be carried out to review the behavior of the currency after the next halving to achieve better decision making.
Concerns related to the profitability of master nodes and mining will be cleared up once the so-called capitulation occurs, the rebalancing process will occur and everything will continue to work. The uncertainty is in the price action…

1 Like
15

We are finalizing the final poll voting options here:

1 Like