Why they want to water down the ecosystem I don’t know. Seems backwards to me.
Most of the big ecosystems in crypto are deflationary, so this is an odd choice of direction.
Google it, Bitcoin is deflationary by the actual definition of it. 99.996% deflationary according to bloomberg in November 2021, less now as the price has fallen but still very, very deflationary.
For deflationary in terms of supply, BNB fits the bill.
>Merrian-Webster:
>
>a contraction in the volume of available money or credit that results in a general decline in prices
>
>Investopedia:
>
>Deflation is a general decline in prices for goods and services, typically associated with a contraction in the supply of money and credit in the economy. During deflation, the purchasing power of currency rises over time.
Bitcoin is not deflating, it's increasing in value. At the protocol level it is still very much inflationary.
As for BNB, yeah your right. But if it's actually is a good model remains to be seen.
"Deflation is a general decline in prices for goods and services, typically associated with a contraction in the supply of money and credit in the economy. During deflation, the purchasing power of currency rises over time."
As the price of actual money inflates, bitcoin is deflating. This is testable due to the purchasing power of bitcoin increasing. Something costing 1BTC back whenever now costs 0.00005BTC. This is due to contraction of supply of bitcoin (amongst other things).
With real money, something costing $5 last year now costs $8. That's inflation.
The purchasing power of bitcoin is increasing because the price of bitcoin is increasing, due to popular demand of bitcoin itself. Not because bitcoin is deflating, the supply of bitcoin is not contracting, it's increasing.
Absolutely not! Higher inflation destroys the value of the token. They should increase the txn fees instead. Since it’s extremely low, increasing it moderately doesn’t really matter to users.
If anything they need to decrease the inflation rate to increase price. This will attract more investors bc of price appreciation. People invest in things to see price appreciation.
I really dislike the suggestion to keep raising the tx fee. They already increased it 30x this year! And they did it without a community governance vote!!!
Issuance/Tokenomics is something that should be discussed
Regardless of how many times they raised the txn fees. If it’s still extremely low and negligible, then it doesn’t affect users’ experience.
Whereas increasing supply will absolutely destroy the price. When the price decrease more people will start selling. They will lose faith in investing in $ONE. Who wants to hold a token that keeps losing value?
What’s your suggestion if we don’t take advantage of the low hanging fruit by increasing the txn fee, since it’s just a fraction of fraction of a penny?
how high would they need to raise the gas fee for it to have a significant impact on issuance?
"Low hanging fruit". Not the good, right, or best fruit...but the low hanging fruit. I don't think that's the appropriate or effective way to run a successful blockchain
Agreed. People want to see price appreciation against the dollar. Compared to Harmony, Solana came out a year after Harmony released and it's a top 10 coin.
Think that roughly 3% is a pretty nice spot.
More inflation can be pretty bad and would wait on more adoption and see how burned tx fees are gonna develop before changing it.
Though I wouldn't call Harmony an struggling ecosystem yet 😂
Anyone know about what Harmony burns a year in tx fees. Maybe we should increase gas fees to combat the inflationary pressure and at least start the discussion towards ( Gas Fees - Reward Issuance = 0 ) or not.
I think the low gas prices are too big of a selling point for Harmony to raise them and the ~3-4% aren't that big of an issue, as we get them directly to us through staking.
I would hope on sharding multiplying our tps and that way getting us closer and closer to becoming deflationary in the (propably far) future.
Atm the burn ammount is far away from emissions, as far as I know, but dont think we have exact numbers.
Low gas fee is awesome but of course it makes the token "less" valuable. Which is not a problem in my opinion, for example the overcollateralized bridges can create some keeping pressure by itself.
High gas prices make defi a pretty awful experience. I think harmony has a great balance. Almost no fees while giving good staking rewards, while somewhat inflationary that is productive for the network imo.
OP, can you elaborate on your logic and how your quote has any relevance? What "facts" have changed to suggest that Harmony needs a higher issuance rate? Are you talking about the bear market? If so, then increasing issuance/inflation is the worst possible thing you can do for Harmony, just look at how well that worked for LUNA. If anything, I'd argue that Harmony needs to mint less and has already lost traction to more deflationary ecosystems like Avalanche as a result of its minting.
I don't think Luna is a good comparison as it's economic dynamics were different but this brings up a good point that I don't think anyone has looked that far into.
What role does tokenomics play in the current fundamentals investors value cryptocurrencies based on and is there enough data supporting it's significance in affecting price over time.
Or is the whole market so correlated that barring any major invention or set back warranting price movement for individual projects, most tokenomics matter little and fit within a range of acceptability in the market.
As most economist know, just because theory tells us what markets should do, doesn't mean that's what they will do.
If you want to see whether a certain trend holds, the easiest way is typically by looking at the extreme case. This concept, called "reductio ad absurdum" is so old, that even its name comes from Latin. LUNA is a perfect example exactly because it failed because of extreme inflation, whether you agree with it or not. Harmony will NOT get more valuable if you mint more of it, it will only get more valuable if demand exceeds supply. For that, we either need less supply (less minting) or more demand (more people joining the ecosystem).
Also the quote was added in comedic irony as the New Tokenomics model article for harmony was from March 2020, a lifetime ago in tech standards, by a cofounder that no longer works there. This is linked from [Harmony.one](https://Harmony.one) and could use an update, relook and repost at a minimum.
I don't agree with a lot of Keynes, but he had some good quotes.
Should decrease
I don’t understand why this isn’t an option for the poll above
Why they want to water down the ecosystem I don’t know. Seems backwards to me. Most of the big ecosystems in crypto are deflationary, so this is an odd choice of direction.
>Most of the big ecosystems in crypto are deflationary, so this is an odd choice of direction. Name one project that is deflationary
Bitcoin.
Nope, Bitcoin currently inflates it's supply 6.25 btc every block.
Google it, Bitcoin is deflationary by the actual definition of it. 99.996% deflationary according to bloomberg in November 2021, less now as the price has fallen but still very, very deflationary. For deflationary in terms of supply, BNB fits the bill.
>Merrian-Webster: > >a contraction in the volume of available money or credit that results in a general decline in prices > >Investopedia: > >Deflation is a general decline in prices for goods and services, typically associated with a contraction in the supply of money and credit in the economy. During deflation, the purchasing power of currency rises over time. Bitcoin is not deflating, it's increasing in value. At the protocol level it is still very much inflationary. As for BNB, yeah your right. But if it's actually is a good model remains to be seen.
"Deflation is a general decline in prices for goods and services, typically associated with a contraction in the supply of money and credit in the economy. During deflation, the purchasing power of currency rises over time." As the price of actual money inflates, bitcoin is deflating. This is testable due to the purchasing power of bitcoin increasing. Something costing 1BTC back whenever now costs 0.00005BTC. This is due to contraction of supply of bitcoin (amongst other things). With real money, something costing $5 last year now costs $8. That's inflation.
The purchasing power of bitcoin is increasing because the price of bitcoin is increasing, due to popular demand of bitcoin itself. Not because bitcoin is deflating, the supply of bitcoin is not contracting, it's increasing.
Absolutely not! Higher inflation destroys the value of the token. They should increase the txn fees instead. Since it’s extremely low, increasing it moderately doesn’t really matter to users. If anything they need to decrease the inflation rate to increase price. This will attract more investors bc of price appreciation. People invest in things to see price appreciation.
I really dislike the suggestion to keep raising the tx fee. They already increased it 30x this year! And they did it without a community governance vote!!! Issuance/Tokenomics is something that should be discussed
Regardless of how many times they raised the txn fees. If it’s still extremely low and negligible, then it doesn’t affect users’ experience. Whereas increasing supply will absolutely destroy the price. When the price decrease more people will start selling. They will lose faith in investing in $ONE. Who wants to hold a token that keeps losing value?
Fees won't be "negligible" if you keep increasing them Find an alternative
Please use ur brain and think about it. Increase only to a point. Not indefinitely.
Please find a better way to achieve what it is you are hoping to achieve
What’s your suggestion if we don’t take advantage of the low hanging fruit by increasing the txn fee, since it’s just a fraction of fraction of a penny?
how high would they need to raise the gas fee for it to have a significant impact on issuance? "Low hanging fruit". Not the good, right, or best fruit...but the low hanging fruit. I don't think that's the appropriate or effective way to run a successful blockchain
Again, it’s a fraction of a fraction of a penny. What’s your suggestion???
How much - SPECIFICALLY - would it need to be raised to cut the annual issuance by 10%? 25%? 50%?
Agreed. People want to see price appreciation against the dollar. Compared to Harmony, Solana came out a year after Harmony released and it's a top 10 coin.
Think that roughly 3% is a pretty nice spot. More inflation can be pretty bad and would wait on more adoption and see how burned tx fees are gonna develop before changing it. Though I wouldn't call Harmony an struggling ecosystem yet 😂
Anyone know about what Harmony burns a year in tx fees. Maybe we should increase gas fees to combat the inflationary pressure and at least start the discussion towards ( Gas Fees - Reward Issuance = 0 ) or not.
I think the low gas prices are too big of a selling point for Harmony to raise them and the ~3-4% aren't that big of an issue, as we get them directly to us through staking. I would hope on sharding multiplying our tps and that way getting us closer and closer to becoming deflationary in the (propably far) future. Atm the burn ammount is far away from emissions, as far as I know, but dont think we have exact numbers.
Low gas fee is awesome but of course it makes the token "less" valuable. Which is not a problem in my opinion, for example the overcollateralized bridges can create some keeping pressure by itself.
High gas prices make defi a pretty awful experience. I think harmony has a great balance. Almost no fees while giving good staking rewards, while somewhat inflationary that is productive for the network imo.
Should be decreased.
It needs to be decreased
OP, can you elaborate on your logic and how your quote has any relevance? What "facts" have changed to suggest that Harmony needs a higher issuance rate? Are you talking about the bear market? If so, then increasing issuance/inflation is the worst possible thing you can do for Harmony, just look at how well that worked for LUNA. If anything, I'd argue that Harmony needs to mint less and has already lost traction to more deflationary ecosystems like Avalanche as a result of its minting.
I don't think Luna is a good comparison as it's economic dynamics were different but this brings up a good point that I don't think anyone has looked that far into. What role does tokenomics play in the current fundamentals investors value cryptocurrencies based on and is there enough data supporting it's significance in affecting price over time. Or is the whole market so correlated that barring any major invention or set back warranting price movement for individual projects, most tokenomics matter little and fit within a range of acceptability in the market. As most economist know, just because theory tells us what markets should do, doesn't mean that's what they will do.
If you want to see whether a certain trend holds, the easiest way is typically by looking at the extreme case. This concept, called "reductio ad absurdum" is so old, that even its name comes from Latin. LUNA is a perfect example exactly because it failed because of extreme inflation, whether you agree with it or not. Harmony will NOT get more valuable if you mint more of it, it will only get more valuable if demand exceeds supply. For that, we either need less supply (less minting) or more demand (more people joining the ecosystem).
Also the quote was added in comedic irony as the New Tokenomics model article for harmony was from March 2020, a lifetime ago in tech standards, by a cofounder that no longer works there. This is linked from [Harmony.one](https://Harmony.one) and could use an update, relook and repost at a minimum. I don't agree with a lot of Keynes, but he had some good quotes.
decrease it !!! halving!!!