Hey @amelia apologies I missed out on replying to this conversation somehow as we were quite busy with the launch of the DEX on Babylon.
Thanks for bringing such a detailed conversation to live, some of these ideas and points are very valid and should definitely be looked into or discussed further. Please allow me some time to reply to each of your points in more detail, aiming to get back by Tuesday next week latest.
Thanks again everyone for the incredibly thoughtful and candid discussion. I’ve once again taken the time to read through all the posts in this thread, and I want to start by acknowledging that the concerns raised — especially around validator sustainability — are both valid and overdue.
I appreciate @amelia for putting forward such a detailed, data-driven case. The thread has clearly struck a chord with many in the validator set who are, in truth, keeping this chain running — sometimes out of principle, sometimes out of long-standing relationships, and often without the recognition or support they deserve.
Let me try to structure my thoughts in a few different buckets:
There’s a shared sense that the network’s design no longer aligns with its scale. From suggestions like reducing the active validator set, to revisiting the inflation model and base commission floor, many of the ideas raised are not unreasonable. In fact, several could be executed with relatively low dev overhead via governance:
The idea of building a soft reputation-weighted delegation system is promising, but admittedly more complex and time-consuming to implement as well. While I’m open to the community piloting ideas or off-chain experiments that could inform such a direction, I’d prefer the core team to keep their focus on the products that can bring real utility for the ecosystem: the DEX and the Interoperability product.
Side note: no hard feelings: While we are doing everything we can to bring more utility to the products and to XPRT, we unfortunately cannot give any guarantees on validator revenue. In the end everything in this ecosystem is an open market and everyone can join or leave as they please, based on their level of long-term believe in the project. Of course I want to keep all validators on board and keep everyone happy, but there are no hard feelings whatsoever if anyone decides to leave based on the current conditions. We love you for all the contributions along the way and we’ll welcome you back with open arms when it makes more sense.
Some of the heavier proposals — like forking the chain, merging with others, or even sunsetting — are uncomfortable to read but I understand why they’re being raised. The reality is that other Cosmos chains have made these hard decisions rather than prolong validator pain. That’s not the direction I want to see for Persistence because we are still building towards a vision, which might not have been the case for these other chains.
I don’t see sunsetting as the plan. I do still see a chance to increase utility with the 2 main products, further align incentives, and make sure that those contributing to the chain aren’t punished for doing so, on the contrary. I’d say we need at least until the end of 2025 to really make that case clear and give it a real shot at success.
I hope these answers shed some light on my thinking around the raised concerns and I hope they spark a new wave of discussion amongst validators which could (or not) result in an on-chain proposal with some (quick?) wins.
We may not be able to implement every idea right away — but I do believe we can move forward on several fronts without distracting from core development. Once both the DEX on Babylon and the interop product are fully live and started to gain some traction, we can revisit these things as by then things could look completely different.
Thanks again all of you for being the backbone of this chain.
Thank you @dneorej
In my opinion, none of the “easy” ideas would make any difference – at best they would increase the number of tokens we earn from validating and therefore the sell pressure if we decide to swap them for fiat.
Revisiting the situation at the end of the year sounds like a good plan. A few more months won’t make much difference in terms of costs for us all, and it leaves you hopefully enough time to complete the ongoing project.
Giving utility to XPRT is definitely the best way forward. Then we can optimize things by reworking the tokenomics and validator parameters, but it’s secondary.
Our team sends all rewards to Persistence liquidity pools =)
This allows you not to stack coins and increases the validator’s earnings.
The interest rates there are not bad now =))))
Am I the only one who feels like @dneorej 's response is mostly vague and evasive?
Sure, he tried to address a few things, but let’s be honest — nothing meaningful was actually answered.
That line — “we’re doing everything we can to bring utility” — what does that even mean? What exactly is “everything”? Because from what we’re seeing, it looks like nothing.
And where’s the leadership accountability?
Also, let’s be real — several direct questions were completely skipped:
None of this got answered. Just generic fluff.
If the CEO office isn’t responsible for performance, sustainability, or transparency — then who is?
These aren’t nitpicks. These are foundational concerns for anyone staking time, money, or reputation on this network. If leadership can’t be transparent or take ownership, then then leadership is unfit for the purpose.
Hi Amelia, please find my responses to all of your questions below:
This means continuously building out our products + doing marketing + doing BD + doing Research + experimenting. One example I’ll give is that we’re looking into how we can give fee discounts to XPRT stakers.
All of this info is publicly available. Ever since we started, we’ve met most validators either in person at conferences or over a call and have kept in touch. We’ve encouraged all validators to have a line of communication with us since day one, which is also written on our docs: Validator Communication | Persistence One. We’d encourage you to do the same and reach out to us to have a conversation and see how we can help. And, of course, this offer extends to anyone in the validator community.
BTCFi is a broader term for what I call Bitcoin Powered Decentralised Finance. I’ve touched upon this in the many spaces, interviews and podcasts I’ve attended over the last few months. It’s DeFi on top of the bitcoin network and around bitcoin the asset. The idea is that the target user base is so much bigger than DeFi on Ethereum, since the bitcoin ecosystem is just so much bigger.
Babylon is the Cosmos’ gateway to Bitcoin. Rather than fighting that and trying to make Persistence that gateway to bitcoin, we leverage what Babylon has to access the Bitcoin ecosystem, meanwhile we contribute to their ecosystem by bringing an alternative DEX and soon a connection to other BTC L2s. With the huge variation in bitcoin related assets on Babylon (Mintscan), the use case for our Cross-Chain swap product couldn’t be clearer. Whatever we build for Babylon is reproducible on Persistence and vice versa. The more users and volumes we can generate across the different products, the better our chances for the entire Persistence ecosystem to benefit.
We used to have a very extensive FDP and all details for the various rounds have always been published transparently on this page: https://docs.persistence.one/community-and-support/foundation-delegations
However, running this program took a lot of effort and time and the engagement had started to decrease over time, and we started to take a more passive approach towards this. This means we do spot checks now and then to ensure the main criteria are met and rebalances where it seems appropriate. I’m happy to start reviving a more active program here if there’s demand for that.
We’re considering all options to support validators and are open to any suggestions. Besides the FDP review mentioned above, we can also look at the reduction of the validator set or an increase in the minimum commission as mentioned earlier in this thread. On another note, it’s also open for anyone to submit this as a governance proposal on chain… Regardless of these, I still believe the best way to help validators is to make the products a success, get more users and protocol revenues to make the ecosystem self-sustainable.
see above
The strategy has been communicated and we continue to talk about it on all our socials. We are focused on growing 2 things: the DEX (on Persistence and Babylon), and the Cross-chain swaps product for BTC L2s. The strategy is to integrate all of these nicely into 1 single product catering to the swapping needs of the BTCFi, Babylon & Persistence Ecosystem. BTC.X to BTC.Y across all BTCFi chains is the vision. Time is needed to execute the strategy and make the vision reality.
I hope this answers your questions and if not, I’d suggest again you reach out to us to set up a common telegram group and a call to get to know each other. We’re here to do our best and support where we can.
Thanks for engaging on the forum @dneorej and thanks for asking the often unheard questions @amelia
What I see in web3 is always the struggle between projects trying to run a business and the transparent nature we expect from this market. Whereas literally nobody asks large companies what their plans and timelines are is expected in web3 were all plannings and roadmaps should be out in the open.
I recognize that @dneorej is present a lot on various channels, promoting the project and sharing the vision. I don’t have insight in effectivity of the chosen channels, something that might be useful to track as well. Is the userbase growing? Are more adresses being activated on chain? Key metrics to track whether we have more people coming in the ecosystem than leaving.
Productwise I agree. I am glad that the team focusses on the product, since that is literally the only way out. Fiddling with small pocket change like inflation is only delaying the fact that in the end you need usage, volume to really make a project successful.
Something which is not entirely clear for me yet is that value accrual which occurs through the products put on the market. How is that flowing back to XPRT as an asset? In other words, why should people buy the asset and stake it?
That analogy doesn’t quite hold. Public companies—especially in regulated markets—are held to strict standards of reporting, forecasting, earnings calls, and shareholder disclosures. Roadmaps, financials, and executive visibility aren’t optional—they’re expected. So yes, people do ask, and they have legal grounds to demand it.
If a web3 project that has launched a coin and is publicly traded should to be treated like a business, that comes with responsibilities—transparency being a big one.
Any updates on this? It’s a promising idea but there’s been no follow-up.
Thanks—I did some digging. According to persistence.one, the CEO is Tushar Aggarwal (X profile), but he hasn’t mentioned the project or any developments in about a year. Has there been a leadership transition, or has he stepped back from day-to-day ops?
The team size is noted as 16+. Any transparency on what roles they’re focused on (dev, ops, BD, etc.)? Some insight here would help understand where things are headed—especially when validators and stakers are covering real costs.
I’d like to reopen this topic, since situation isn’t changing, and topic still actual.