Reduce max supply from 21.4 million to 21 million?

Firo Improvement Proposals
45

Of course there is no problem with different points of view, and I am just explaining the pros and cons of each aspect.

1 Like
46

The use of development funds for the destruction of tokens is obviously extremely unreasonable at present, and it is agreed to solve the problem through the method of tail issuance.

1 Like
47

My option is yes. Since FIRO has a great future, we should handle the previous problem and renew to 2100,0000，and tail emission sounds can be a good way.

1 Like
48

Hey Reuben, I figured the following may be a good short/long term emission plan.

  1. A reduction back to 21 million first.
  2. Halvings stop after annual inflation is sub 1%, so 21 million is reached quicker.
  3. Tail emission that sufficiently incentivizes security, kicks in after 21 mill to ensure security particularly during bear markets with lower network usage.
  4. Transaction fees burned similar to Eth’s latest upgrade to prevent inflation.
3 Likes
49

Good conversation, a couple of thoughts:

  1. I think another approach to consider if we wanted to reduce the 400k supply would be to move the next halving earlier by 32,000 blocks. All the halving blocks would need to be shifted up by 32,000 to ensure the following halving would not be extra long.

    • Reasoning: This would pull the 400k from the most plentiful inflation period still available (this one) while keeping reward amounts consistent. It would also not have any impact to the halving schedule afterwards (every 4 years), such as eliminating 400k off the tail end of inflation would.

  2. I’ve been mulling over a tail emission and I’ve come around to thinking that a small tail emission of under 100k/yr would be welcome for security. I imagine Bitcoin will come around to the same thing eventually as well as too much supply is lost over the years.

My vote is:

  1. No adjustment to the supply, this is really small potatoes at this point. But if you do… consider the way I recommended to minimize impact for future years if it’s punted.

  2. Introduce a tail emission when you’re complete with development as a cherry on top. Since it’s not a pressing issue for 20+ years, I don’t think development resources should be spent solving this problem today. The 21m number attracts people as a long term store of value, and I think it can do more harm than good in the growth phase of the project.

1 Like
50

So it would someday to consider converting to pos.

1 Like
51

I am against this idea. While I see the benefit of a nice round number like 21m, and it would (at least temporarily) increase the perceived value of remaining coins, I don’t like the idea of tampering with a fundamental issue like the number of coins. It just creates new attack surfaces for people trying to spread rumors. The 400k extra coins have been around a long time now and do not seem to be creating major problems.

2 Likes
52

Without any clear consensus thus far, I would propose no modification be done currently unless there’s a clear direction either way. I do think that it’s important to think how to reward masternodes as halving approaches as I don’t want validator numbers to keep dropping as their rewards drop.

I’ll probably create a new thread on this once we formulate some ideas on consensus models and tokenomics.

3 Likes