One thing I learned in my life is that it is impossible to model reality.
Simplicity has its own power. Complexity tends to scare people (don’t buy into something you don’t understand).
But real problems need to be solved, better now than later. But maybe we can have our cake and eat it…
I think we discussed several potential issues in this thread. Things that seem to be important, but are not currently modelled into the Tokenomics.
- Available bandwidth (over time) of the connected capacity is not a metric currently used
- Geo location (at time of connection) of the capacity is not a metric currently used
- Utilisation (% of capacity used, at time of connection of the network is not a metric currently used;
- The downside of using a total token amount that is hard capped (or very very large);
- The downside of lowering the total token amount considerably as compared to the original proposal (as then current large token-holders become automatically wales).
My line of thoughts:
- Make available bandwidth at connection time part of the CPR calculation. If available average bandwidth appears to be lower over time, then penalise this the same way as when hardware is not-online
- Make Geo-Location part of the CPR, interesting regions earn more tokens. Easy for farmers to project impact of location to their ROI
- Make Utilisation part of the CPR, when utilisation is low, less tokens are rewarded. Easy for farmers to model impact of timing to their ROI. If investing in more hardware seems less interesting, they can invest in marketing to increase utilisation. When all farmers do that, then connecting new hardware becomes more profitable again;
Note: changing the way CPR is calculated doesn’t make the tokenomics inherently more complex. There will be one value that determines the value of the connected capacity at time of connection, with a correction when the capacity (including bandwidth) was not available.
IMHO how CPR is calculated should be able to change over time, for newly connected hardware, as we learn how to better valuate capacity. This valuation will change anyway in the long term.
Leaves only the issues 4 and 5 to be solved now.
I basically think issues 4 and 5 are interrelated. 5 is only an issue if the we set the max token amount too low at launch. If we can agree that its ok to have 20% of tokens already minted in the economics, then just setting a hard cap of 800 x 5 = 4 Billion looks better then 2 Billion
To summarise; add complexity in the calculation of CPR, and allow the way of calculation to evolve over time to adept to new circumstances.
Lower max. token amount to 4 Billion instead of 2 Billion.
The combination of these measures should largely defer the issues we identified, that is as far as my understanding goes. Including the impossibility to become a whale without making huge investments which actually will be meaningful for the Grid.
I’m really quite distant from this project and certainly do not claim to understand all intricacies, but here you have my mind-map.
Im open for the Zoom call Kristof suggested.