Maybe our tokenomics can be improved?

Current approach on gdoc

Some possible ideas

these are just ideas, no-one says we need to follow them, but worth discussing.

  • put max amount of tokens in (max mining amount), today unlimited
  • create the difficulty level in relation to the nr of connected nodes (or some capacity metric), so make pre-agreed formula = more deterministic
  • protection for too high speculation by putting formula in which auto creates tokens when value goes up too quickly and re-distribute to existing farmers as motivation to sell existing tokens
  • don’t take pricing into consideration for token generation amount, amount of tokens farmed is in line with with capacity already available, have more predictable and easier formula to calculate amount of tokens generated = really do like a proof of IT capacity (rather than proof of work)
    • e.g. work with chance, each farmer has X amount of chance per unit amount of capacity to win the generation of 1 TFT, is more in line with bitcoin. Chance becomes more difficult as there are already more tokens generated (closer to maximum)

we are having more meetings to open up the brainstorm.

We can make changes now, will become much more difficult in future.
If we do a change then it needs to be good for all existing farmers.

My 2 cents…

  1. This idea looks appealing, but the question then will be of course what is the maximum? Do you want to follow the crypto model (limited) or the fiat model (unlimited). In theory an unlimited (for all practical purposes) amount of capacity can be added to the grid, and the economy in theory is also unlimited. This is different then for e.g. Bitcoin where any value is just a result of scarcity which (in theory) doesn’t apply to the TF Grid. Hence having no limit here seems more natural.

  2. From what I understand, the ‘difficulty’ level is implemented to ensure that ThreeFold Grid capacity will always outpace tokens in circulation up to the point where all 100 Billion tokens are released. The factor 8 is arbitrary (and can be changed), but it all seems a bit ‘odd’. I would indeed suggest a better metric here, and really think how difficulty could drive capacity to stay connected.

  3. I don’t think you should implement brakes on speculation on (our) block-chain level. Over speculation should be addressed at the exchange level (like IRL). In any case this issue should be addressed only when it actually occurs and we have insight in the mechanisms causing irrational speculation.

  4. This approach I don’t really understand. After Investing in capacity and adding it to the grid, a reward should not be left to chance. For bitcoin you can get better chances by adding more CPU power to it, and adding more IT capacity only to have a higher chance to get rewarded seems not in line with our values as ultimately you don’t want ‘dead’ IT capacity online as this is a waste of resources too. But I might misunderstand what you’re trying to do here.

If I understand well, main concern made by ‘experts’ is that despite backing of our token by capacity as well as difficulty level that can be adapted, the token still might be too volatile. Curious about what can be improved on this.