Post #31768

27242b556317d204596bb20c828b2ed7c843d7fa6bd601e88b0688f001b442da
8bcafad0e71261987ede0a398cef0d9976a389254f9586f7d51a30c4bdf5df68
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

The signature from the blockchain entry has been verified against an identity on this server.

{"entry_date":1613310042,"post_data":{"edit_count":1,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"a4988c12e1c262cce6d0685c6544e04f7c8ddb82823f2569821d065d5c59238d6245d101de566fd1b27c688ebdfc0b24d66be990d9250218e063a77984a15938","node_id":115,"post_date":1613309938,"thread_id":5666,"user_id":8},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/sphereon-bv-niels-klomp.5666\/post-31768"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
[Sphereon BV] Niels Klomp
Good question.

It is something we have to define collaboratively, but if you ask me and that is what I will be proposing we will have a mint event. But that has to tie into the vision, strategy and plans. It should not be some random amount of token. It should be an amount of tokens with a vesting scheme, tied into certain events. Which takes into account the bull and bear market cycles. It shouldn't be an amount of tokens that would allow the protocol to continue without any changes in case of a bearish cycle, because then it will be perceived as just grabbing money at the expense of token holders. So it has to be a fine balance. A balance that allows us to still achieve our goals if the market turns bearish again (it will at one point), but which also means we will have to adjust our objectives slightly. A schema that allows the protocol to flourish and anyone involved in it together with it. That takes into account burns in case we do flourish to ensure investors are willing to invest as they will not be bombarded with token sales. It needs to tie directly in to the tokenomics plan we come up with that should incentivize entering now both as user of the protocol as well as holders. We need to incentivice new companies/integrators and projects developing on the protocol, as we should have money for development, outreach, marketing, listings

The current 10% inflation might not be that problematic if you just take into account many years of holding, but in all honesty that is just not how any token holder would look at it. A lot of tokenholders are not investing for 10 years. But even if they did the additional inflation on top of the 100% an investor started with still is 160%. The problem is that it continues at this rate, without any events and/or performance associated to it people will find the risks of all that inflation simply to big.

We should have a plan for the next 4-5 years. If we haven't made it work by then, everybody should draw their own conclusions. The plan needs to reflect that. We should be aware of that we want more people to get in asap. Compared to a traditional business we are in a bit of an unique situation at this point. Making the visions, strategy and execution plans is something you typically do. Then you raise the money for that execution. We can control that amount of money within boundaries however.

The above is also why I really have been a broken record about the order of things. We shouldn't be doing a roadmap without strategy/vision and execution plans first. We certainly shouldn't be doing an almost once in a lifetime big tokenomics change without knowing what the tokens would be used for.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top