[R] KSM #507 - Reducing inflation and setting a realistic target for coretime sales

https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/507

Reducing Inflation is a proposal to adjust Kusama's inflation parameters. The proposal suggests reducing the annual inflation rate from 10% to 5%, as the ecosystem has matured enough for long-term sustainability. The changed parameters include setting MaxInflation to 5% and changing UseAuctionSlots from true to false. The proposal also discusses reducing ideal bulk coretime sales to increase demand for KSM and adjust the core business model. The ideal bulk proportion is suggested to be changed from 100% to 40%. The proposer, a Kusama enthusiast, hopes the proposal will be well-received and contribute to the ecosystem's growth.

14gM...deVb

14gMJV95zwxUsFEZDSC8mtBVifS6SypKJkfBKANkMsLZdeVb

Aye

# 1

Personally I'd like to see more attempts like this for the ecosystem health though it may reduce validators' income.

167Y...TY9F

167YoKNriVtP4Nxk9F9GRV7HTKu5VnxaRq1pKMANAnmmTY9F

Nay

# 2

We need a solid plan for this, Kusama has 1000 validators, as it is they are losing money running the validators, this change will push them farther in their monetary loses. I feel that maybe Nominators need to front any inflation reducing mechanics, until we have enough traffic to change things.

12s6...nE8h

12s6UMSSfE2bNxtYrJc6eeuZ7UxQnRpUzaAh1gPQrGNFnE8h

Abstain

# 3

This proposal will directly affect validators, which are running Kusama nodes on the edge of profitability. This proposal wasn't even widely discussed before it was placed in OpenGov. We think that those kind of changes with big impact shoudl be discussed before on the forum and the Kusama Matrix, not after they are placed. As we are one of the validators and it affect us, so due to the COI, we will vote Abstain with our vote.

12Kt...DCoJ

12KtA8mtfsK1CyQb4utLiwG3ao22z77w2cM2GqnaL2RiDCoJ

Nay

# 2

Kusama validators are becoming less profitable due to KSM’s price action. With better timing and open community discussion, this proposal could have been stronger. Still, these are valuable lessons, and we have the chance to revisit and improve this together in the future. Nay for now, but open to revisiting this at a later time.

15fT...yBzL

15fTH34bbKGMUjF1bLmTqxPYgpg481imThwhWcQfCyktyBzL

Nay

# 2

It's not looking like a good idea to reduce the validator income on Kusama at this moment. The network is already paying its security providers, ie validators, quite poorly due to the price action. It's an easy choice for me after a quick look at the comments, but I have to follow Polkadotters and abstain due to the fact that Helikon is running validators on Kusama.

14Gn...YLEh

14Gn7SEmCgMX7Ukuppnw5TRjA7pao2HFpuJo39frB42tYLEh

Abstain

# 3

I consider it an attractive proposal in terms of tokenomics, but quite aggressive in its approach. Halving the revenue for validators may push them to the limit and thus jeopardize their participation in the network, which would put the network itself at risk in the event of a major disconnection of validators. I believe that this type of proposal should be discussed in greater depth in the ecosystem.

1ZSP...vx6w

1ZSPR3zNg5Po3obkhXTPR95DepNBzBZ3CyomHXGHK9Uvx6w

Nay

# 2

The desire to reduce inflation is understandable, as is the concerns of validators regarding profitability. Perhaps this can be considered down the road and we can look to increase demand and utility for Kusama in the meantime.

12Hi...E9N3

12His7t3EJ38tjdBbivUzWQeaNCLKfMqtKp1Ed3xHMyCE9N3

Nay

# 2

The sentiment from KSM validators seems to be that this won't work and they're already hurting. I think this discussion can be revisited once these conditions change.

1xzc...1bX6

1xzcLSwo7xBFkJYZiL4EHaqFpuPTkH641E3V43W4cuk1bX6

Nay

# 2

We agree with the comments of the other nay voters.

Votes·9

Discussions·0