Thanks for your thoughts on this. I also agree that tail emission should be considered for all blockchains, although my mind is not settled about the issue.
A minor note: âTowards Overcoming the Undercutting Problemâ, which was presented at a conference this month, suggests that the problems outlined in âOn the Instability of Bitcoin without the Block Rewardâ are not as severe as believed. However, the âundercuttingâ problem deals mostly with short-term block re-organizations and is a separate question from whether the value of fees alone will be able to provide for the long-term security of any given blockchain.
Regarding the effect of tail emission on the money supply and price levels, Iâve written some thoughts on the Zcash forum:
Iâd say that most mainstream economists would agree with what I say above â itâs pretty standard and matter-of-fact.
I am of two minds when it comes to whether cryptocurrency protocol developers should listen more to mainstream economists. On the one hand, I want to see financial innovation thrive. Maybe there are things that we (economists) are missing in all of this, especially given that billions of Euros/USD have been willingly invested by rational(?) and sophisticated agents. On the other hand, a phrase that comes to mind is âThe market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solventâ. So maybe many of these projects are deeply irrational and it is only a matter of time before they come crashing down.
2 Likes
A tail emission does not increase inflation rate. It only keeps a small one at the end.
2 Likes
So, it make coin supply inflation rate at low constant rate like Tron and etheruem.
I am in support for tail emission.
2 Likes
Another argument in favor of tail emission is that worldâs population keeps growing. Once a coin gets traction and if it is going to be used as a currency as opposed to a store of value, it seems like it should at least match the population growth if the goal is to maintain purchasing power, as opposed to having it increase or decrease, over time.
Even the historic physical stores of value (gold, silver etc) have a net increase of supply each year.
1 Like
Only time will tell if one way or the other is better, but I currently lean towards having a tail emission. It seems naive to assume that fees will cover / provide incentive for miners and MNs to secure the network. My guess is that in the long, long, long term, projects that have found the right balance in a tail emission that keeps network security, function, and development incentivized with minimal inflation will find success.
Hi, Reuben, can you explain the reason that the âFiro v0.14.10.0 mandatory updateâ includes âthe block time to 2.5 minutes.â I think this proposal is not approved by the community.
1 Like
This was mentioned here: Poll on Firo Block Reward Division - #122 by reuben
Additionally in the three separate topics discussing/polling the tokenomics change, there were no objections raised.
Old (5 minute blocks):
12.5 FIRO per block x 288 blocks per day = 3600 FIRO a day
New (2.5 minute blocks):
6.25 FIRO per block x 576 blocks per day = 3600 FIRO a day
The emission remains unchanged.
3 Likes
There is no acceleration of emission. Block time is adjusted for better user experience.
The rewards have been adjusted so that the emission is the same.
Please note that despite the FUD against me, it wasnât me who started the proposal to accelerate token emission (which did not pass). It was brought up by another community member who requested for it be discussed and I found it interesting enough to casually mention it.
You can see the forum history on this.
4 Likes
I might be a little late to this thread, but I just want to say I really prefer a tail emission like XMR has instead of a finite emission like BTC. I am a big fan of moneroâs emission schedule, (we just successfully went into tail emission the other day!). The upsides are that it provides incentive for miners forever, and despite having âinfinite supplyâ (over an infinite time period, mind you), inflation asymptotically approaches 0% as t->infinity.
However, with respect to the speed of the emission? I donât really know. But a more gradual curve is better, right? I think moneroâs curve was chosen so that it would have lower inflation than bitcoin over the next 50 years or something. Iâm curious to see what you guys think about this. I mentioned in another thread that a really fast emission schedule is usually a sign of a premined coin: if the schedule is too fast, outsiders might be turned away or they might fork it like bytecoin->bitmonero. IDK, food for thought.
1 Like
I should add that âinfinite supplyâ is a major BTC maxi talking point. âNormiesâ canât really grasp the idea of âthe selfish mining problemâ, but they can grasp the idea of a limited quantity of bitcoin. This FUD is a hurdle that monero currently faces and itâs a hurdle will have to be overcome when marketing firo if we choose tail emission.
Aww, come on, you donât want people like me to vote? Iâll have you know I own as much as 0.8439 FIRO, and counting!
But in all seriousness, I think developers, artists, community contributors, etc. should also get a vote. In an ideal world, we would use classical consensus, and have 1 Person = 1 Vote but we donât live in an ideal world, we live in a world of sybil attacks.
Kek. So if the project fails we go just out with a bang? >:)
Hey, hereâs a funny idea: what if you just made it so that the âtail emissionâ was some function that has such a low slope that it approximated moneroâs tail emission over the next ~100 years, but you make it such that the integral of the function is actually still finite. That way, you can say to maxis that it has a finite supply. The best of both worlds! :3
1 Like
Actually Iâm arguing that our emission is TOO SLOW given the current market. It is following Bitcoinâs schedule at the moment which may have made sense when Bitcoin was the only cryptocurrency. For e.g. XMR has already reached its tail emission.
However I think this boat has sailed for the moment and most people are against changing the tokenomics but I do hope that at least we can talk about the tail emission as I too am a big proponent of this.
Thanks for your clarification.
1 Like
Could alternative/extension to tail emissions be charging part of Elysium layer fees? For example instead of 0.0001 Firo fee it will be double, with half to he stored for future something similar to tail emissions.