I agree with your logic. Let me rephrase. The patient is sick, his stomach hurts. We gather a council, do tests, develop a treatment plan, then agree on it and after that start the treatment. This is your logic and it is correct. But there are exceptions. The patient cut off his finger, the blood is gushing out like a stream. While we are gathering councils and deciding what to do, he will die or get much worse. Therefore, we urgently stop the bleeding, and then we will decide what to do. This is what is happening now. Is that clearer?
Therefore, now we “stop the bleeding” and immediately begin to think about what to do next. In this thread, by the way, a lot of interesting things were voiced that can form the basis for future decisions.
But that keeps hinting on that people undelegating will delegate again when the APR goes up. I literally have not seen that happen at any time in crypto since I am in.
When people have decided to unstake to (most likely) sell, they are going to get through on their decision.
We have to ask ourselves, why have people stopped believing in Persistence? That is a way more interesting question which needs to be answered and is a question which will actually do something.
All we do with this proposal is upping the inflation again, people will get more staking rewards which they will likely sell and hurt the token price even more. Without a proper marketing story which sticks for investors, the price will only go down, regardless if you make the inflation x2, x3, x10 or anything higher.
I am ok with running at a loss, as long as the perspectives are ok. I like projects who have a plan and stick to it, regardless of the economical circumstances.
And the interesting part is that if we are worried about income, then start working on voting power distribution. That is something which works immediately on the income of validators while also reducing potential sell pressure.
If we are worried about delegators rewards, then find a way to redistribute the staking rewards from the team delegations. That way people will see that the team does not want to enlarge their own stack, which is a positive sign that we won’t inflate total supply faster than necessary.
So many solutions which are way better than adjusting inflation parameters. And that is exactly why I say this proposal is rushed without much other consideration. Because if I can think of these solutions within 1-2 minutes, then there are other more capable people around who can come up with better sustainable solutions as well.
Feel free to delegate as you see fit. I am glad there are other opinions out there, since that will only make the final result stronger.
It is interesting to find out WHY people have undelegated in November. Has there been a reduction in APR at that specific time? I can’t find it. So the big big elephant in the room is whether the staking rewards caused the undelegations or something else. And my gut feeling tells me something else (anyone seen the rise in BTC and XRP value?). This will surely not be fixed with upping the inflation.
But the proposal looks like passing, but please also be realistic in 2-3-4 weeks from now that we can come back on this and see that it literally didn’t change a thing in terms of delegations, since it did not solve the real problem.
Investors will go where the money flows, cutting the flow of returns will chase investors away. Investors = delegators, more delegators = security. There are ways to give incentives other than inflation, we need new thinking not harmful ideas.
Because of Proposals that hurt investors who back the project.
As an investor I do not sell my tokens I reinvest/compound until the network is stable with a marketable product, then and only then will I look at taken benefits. You will find most investors will do the same if they believe in a project. If an investor does not believe in a project they won’t invest. Once mainnet goes live it will bring in revenue that can be distributed encouraging investors and new incentives. You need to stop being so negative.
Clearly you don’t understand business, loss only hurts the project and validators. So you create bad perspectives to run at a loss? Persistence has a plan and a great one at that, but some community members want to float bad ideas and are ok running at a loss, not good practice.
I don’t think it is about income more about security at this point in time. If you do think about income at this stage it should be about the smaller validators economic security. When it comes to sell pressure I can only see the large holders with wallets holding over a million tokens that would put sell pressure on the market. Maybe a discussion on an incentive for these wallets to hold or sell smaller amounts could be discussed. Maybe an incentive program for larger holders to delegate with smaller validators would be a good idea. It would support the network by making it stronger and more secure. As an investor staking with the smaller validators is risky due to the potential of slashing or jail ie; through lack of tech know how, inexperience, or a whole host of strungles.
That is a great idea, if there are team wallets that have excess tokens then maybe a proposal can be floated for the team to support the smaller validators with a loan or some type of subsidy on their commission to help them if they meet certain conditions. This would build a strong network and help with smaller validators ecomonic security while building decentralization. Also tech would need to evaluate the smaller validators to find out if they are at risk of slashing or jail, resolve any potential problems with support from the team. This could mean cutting any validator that does not meet a basic requirement to maintian a validator, ie; lack of tech know how, not having the right or out of date equipment.
It seems rushed because it is to remedy a bad Proposal that has chased away investors on mass. Fix the problem then we can come up with incentives to get back stakers to strengthen the network. An idea could be to run more incentive/marketing programs that will bring attention to the network encouraging new stakers, it could be funded by team wallets that have excess tokens.
Jeroen has been doing a good job of getting BTCfi interoperability out there with all the interviews but we need an incentive to bring in stakers. We don’t need to increase inflation just restore it to what it was and create New campaigns or challenges for stakers and new stakers that will give rewards which could be funded by these excess tokens. Or rewards could be like a collection of different NFT’s for delegators and validators that will benefit them with incentives like higher APR ratios or commission rates for those that support the network and smaller validators.
The NFT’s could be base around say how many validators does a staker support, giving them a reward/prize. It would not need to be excessive but something extra, as extra is always good for business. For smaller validators a NFT to subsidise commission for up time or voting consistency, this NFT then could dissolve once the validator got to a certain size, this would assist the network, security and decentralization.
I also see a problem with voting power as a large validator or wallet could very easily over rule the majority of the community by voting, I think it is disproportionate and should be looked at by the community.
The reason people undelegated was because of the vote on proposal 109 not because of APR. believe me I was very close to going else where too but decided to stay as I believe in Persistence and what it is doing. What shocked me was the 50% reduction all at once, I was hoping it would reduce slowly over time giving mainnet a chance to bring in revenue which would have countered the reduction with real rewards.
The real problem is bad ideas that hurt the project. Stop focusing on inflation and start coming up with better ideas to bring in investment.
We have to ask ourselves, why have people stopped believing in Persistence? That is a way more interesting question which needs to be answered and is a question which will actually do something.
I think WHY is Persistence took such a long time to build the interoperability concept which seems so dragged out, and once it was near being finished it did not have a use case. When Persistence announced it was building for BTCfi interoperability I knew this was it, the thing that was going to make Persistence. Also bad proposals and community disagreement is very discouraging to investors, we need to unite with a clear focus. Stop focusing on inflation and start focusing on incentive ideas to bring in investors. Security of the network is a priority then revenue creation is next, we are so close to this objective. Don’t give up on Persistence it has a great future if we come together and focus on what is important.
What do you think about this?
I see for 0,62 % APR: immediately close all positions for delegators.
I see for $270 early income: immediately close validator.
For example, we are devs, we create monitoring apps for Persistence, we have 5 nodes, including archive one, we pay programmers for they work. Even if we could be #1, can we afford it?
And what about our delegators? Are they interested in 0,62 % minus our commission?
LeonoorsCryptoman what are you trying to say? That all this is normal and we have to continue this way before we decide (for months) what to do next to improve Persistence?
Offtopic: look at Comdex (LeonoorsCryptoman, you where there also), this chain have relationships with Persistence. They also tried to launch DEX, and also stable coin, trade derivatives. And where are they now? Consumer chain with token price like garbage. Looks like we have deep problem in chain positioning, value and utilization. That’s what we have to discus. Not fast recovering after wrong halving decision.
Well, inflation is a local problem that we trying to solve now.
But I agree, that we have to look deeper, and solve the main problem - how to attract more people to Persistence.
BTC initiative is a good one, on my opinion. Liquid staking is also good one.
But what’s holding us back? Not enough CEX coverage? No utilization of token?
I’m not an investor/trader, so I’m very interested to hear you point of view/ideas.
Most retail investors are here to make money, indeed this is the rule number 1 out there, never fall in love with a project, so it’s totally rasonable ppl unstake to be ready in case XPRT will catch some run, undelegating takes 21 days and insta- unstake has very expensive comissions, i guess a lot of retail are waiting for a second peak in BTC and the ALt-coin season to get out in some profit, and this isn´t bad is just how the markets work, the main problem is XPRT was totally bribed in Cosmos i witnessed how despite LSM was live first in XPRT the support was to STDR because there was treaties under the table to integrate LSM as the main LIquid Staking Solution, instead to be bold against this manouvers the XPRT team pleaded for a piece of the cake, instead of defend his qualities and interchain attributes, chose to be polite with that community, today years after happens the inevitable the team choose to find better days in the BTC ecosystem, Cosmos is a toxic enviroment plagued with hidden interests, it makes me remember BTS (Bitshares), the same type of grandilocuent narrative, but fulled of mean people, thats why i predict Cosmos has his days numbered, i have seen this before, the problem here is XPRT can´t achieve relevance in the Cosmos realm, indeed as far as i know Cosmos was deprecated or “sunseting” to focus on the BTC side of things, the problem here is timing, XPRT BTCfi could achieve relevance but not now in the final phase of the bull, rigth now ppl are looking for ways to exit not to remain, institucional investors are great target but they also wanna profit so… XPRT is in a do or die situation, those things are so obvious to be ignored, i´m absolutely convinced the team is capable, and i know for sure they don´t trow the towell, but your reputation isn´t in the best shape nowadays, because you guys doesn´t have the guts claim your place in the Cosmos fiasco, it’s worth nothing that i believe in you if you don´t believe in yourserlf, stop trying an DO, don´t treat this project like your private playground, find solutions not at the expenses of the investor.
First of all, I want to sincerely thank everyone for their participation in this discussion. Whether you support or oppose the proposal, I deeply appreciate the time and effort spent engaging in this debate. These discussions are crucial to refining our governance and ensuring we make the best decisions for Persistence’s long-term success.
I know that not every decision we have taken as a team or as a community has turned out to be the right one in hindsight, but I strongly believe we always try to make the best possible decision with the information we have at hand in the moment and we adjust if we believe we’ve made wrong decisions. That’s also what we did in June 2024 and what I’m proposing here.
The decision to change inflation parameters back then might have been a bit too early, and (with all the info we have today), changing the parameters back now would be reversing that decision (rather than reversing the programmed halving which happened this week).
Of course every problem can be analysed more, but I also don’t want to get to a state of analysis paralysis. There’s a trade-off between precision and speed, and it’s often a judgement call on what is the most important one given a specific topic.
Anyway, I think we’re on the right trajectory, I’m convinced that choosing bitcoin interoperability last year was the right decision and we should very soon start seeing the results of the hard work that has gone into it in the background. Besides the interoperability mainnet, we are also actively exploring if we can deploy the Persistence DEX on the babylon chain, thereby further integrating with the Bitcoin and Babylon ecosystem, creating additional opportunities to generate protocol fees.
My suggestion would be to revisit the inflation discussion once we have a better understanding of how much fees we can generate from each of these things.
We are still in building mode, it is expected not to get returns until a business model is in place creating revenue, this is normal and what investors and business entrepreneurs understand. Can we afford it? probably not but as an investor or validator you should be in a position to carry through until the business model is up and running. I know it is hard for some but with the business model that Persistence is putting into place it will give great returns, so the reason why we carry on. Being short sighted is not a positive out look or supportive when still in building faze, coming up with incentives or ideas that encourage participation is preferable. Getting the idea out to the public, campaigns, competitions, even quests can strike up interest in the project. I do not understand why people focus on the inflation, returns, commissions, when there is no business model in place where there are very little or none of that happening before mainnet. This is the supportive/investment/interest raising time not the doubt time, doubt only happens if the business model fails.
Yes this is normal, while building a business, the returns come after mainnet launch, please be patient. You won’t have to wait much longer. Once we go live and see what a great idea Persistence has created you won’t be wanting to improve Persistence, it will shine like a bright star. I will say, it is a critical point now as Persistence is about to release their business model and expectation are getting intense. This is the excitement of business investing, will it work or will it not, I think it will. It is also the stressful part of investing/support as we all hope with fingers crossed that the Persistence team’s technical know how can pull this off. The launch is crucial to success, this is why I do not understand why some community members wish to harm the release of mainnet.
Once again what other chains do or the decisions they make are not the decisions Persistence is making or should make. BTCfi interoperability is a brilliant idea, copying other chains is not. Being first to market is a business model and investors dream, having that advantage puts you in first place for years while others play catch up.
To stand out you must stand alone, learn the lessons from those that fail then improve. In investing and business following the crowd can lead you down the same destructive path that they took, some times going against the crowd is very productive and a winning formulae.
Why it will achieve relevance is easy to explain. It will not matter if the bull run is over for BTC, actually it will be the beginning of the bull run for Persistence. Taking into account what is happening in the Bitcoin world is crucial at this point in time. You have the US government and other governments buying or about to buy. You have all the investment funds (ETF’s) buying, and banks will be able to custody very soon . What do you think they will do with their holdings? Just sit on their hands and not put BTC to work for them, no they will want to capitalize in BTCfi and move the Bitcoin around to capitalize on returns, they are after the money too.
Persistence is in the best position then any other project out there to capitalize on all this Bitcoin movement that will happen. Think of the fees that will be brought into Persistence from all the Bitcoin being moved around back and forth from one BTCfi protocol to another chasing the returns. As more projects find better ways to harness Bitcoins security POW for securing networks, like Babylon which will give returns for Bitcoin staking. Other L2"s and new L1’s will put BTC to work and for that to happen you need to move BTC around cheaply. WHO is best positioned to do this, this is a game changer for the crypto market and Bitcoin. The Persistence community needs to see this and know what WILL happen after mainnet launch.
Yes it is in a do or die situation, this is why I am having a hard time understanding all this negativity and harmful communication and why Prop 109 was a bad idea. Once the mainnet is live and big investors see what is happening they will rush in so they can capitalize on Persistence as well and having a well positioned return at this point is crucial. Inflation can go to zero slowly after mainnet as the returns will be great for Persistence and the community. Once again we are so close to this it is not funny, just have some faith in the Persistence team to do their job.
Well Jeroen I think it was most defiantly the right decision at exactly the right time for Persistence. I would like to thank you and the team for their innovative thought. BTCfi intent based interoperability will be a game changer for the crypto industry. I can hardly wait for you guys to expand this idea to other platforms and make intent based interoperability the norm, keep on innovating.
I would like at this point to ask the community member Pawel_PK that put forward the Forum post “XPRT inflation reduction - change the minimum inflation parameter to 6,25” back in April 2024 to come forward and give his/her thoughts on this forum post. After all it was his/her idea to do this reduction, I would be very interested as to what he/she has to say about the effect that has happened from the reduction and if he/she still thinks it was a good idea to bring forward the halving?
I agree with what Pawel_PK says here but it was way to early to do this as seen by the mass undelegations that has happened weakening the security of the network. If the reduction was kept as it was we would be in mainnet and probably linked with babylon before this reduction kicked in as originally planned.
I find it hard to imagine that Pawel_PK has not made a comment on this post and I would like to hear from him/her.
This is why it should be restored now, then we should wait until after the mainnet launch and linking with Babylon before we visit this type of idea again.
Hi Cosmick777, I’m personally against the current proposal for restoring inflation but I respect the Team and community decision. Happy to see positive price trend last days during the reduced inflation period due to decreased selling pressure. This is the proof the reduction was a good decision to me. I hope we continue the positive price trend after the inflation reduction reversal.
In my opinion the timing to further reduction of inflation was perfect. Just before the mainnet launch with final product of Persistence.
This is the time to finally build the token value, stop the downtrend and the token delution, get the traction and bring wider attention to the project. I believe we need strong positive spike in the price action now more then ever. Per my personal opinion the inflation increase will still work against that…
Hey thanks for the quick reply, So you don’t think the mass unstaking has harmed the security of the network?
Is your thinking, less staking rewards less selling pressure?
You don’t think the positive price trend could be because of the inflation reduction reversal proposal?
So inducing mass unstaking and weakening the security just before the mainnet launch was a good idea? I would like to know what your thinking was around this. Did you factor in that reducing might weaken security due to mass undelegation?
With 1.745 million tokens due for release from delegation on the 1st April, you don’t think there will be more selling pressure? And that is only on that day with a cumulative amount being 2.8 million by that date.
I suppose we will have to wait until after the 1 April to find out what will happen.
My personal opinion was proven right about the Proposal 109 with the current outcome. I can also see more selling pressure after 1st April, lets hope they restake once this reversal happens.
My main concern is having a strong network for a strong mainnet launch, I really do hope that this has not weakened the launch and discouraged investment. As I have already stated we can revisit the reduction after a successful launch.
@Cosmick777@llildur It would be cool if I would not be treated as an enemy of the project. That would sincerely help. Note that there are very very few validators participating in governance conversations (I only see @paranormal and myself in here), let alone be critical on decisions taken by a team. Most validators are just voting “yes” blindly on everything, is that what you want? Do you think I would bother to have this conversation if I wouldn’t care about Persistence?
Furthermore, I stated that I am running at a loss for now and I am ok with that, since I believe in the project and the change which will come when mainnet arrives. Ofcourse profit should be somewhere down the line, it does not necessarily have to be now.
I am also realistic, that people don’t buy assets anymore because of the staking APR. Those times are loooong gone, so passing this proposal simply does not solve the issue. You either have to be a meme-coin with a high potential payout on a short run OR you have to be a good utility asset. Persistence is in the 2nd category, so instead of having conversations around inflation changes (what this proposal is about) I rather talk about how we can turn things around and solve real problems.
Hi Cosmick777, I need to admit this builds me up seeing people fighting for the project. Thank you for that. I personally don’t think the massive undelegation is due to the inflation reduction. We dont have such data. I personally considered buying more after that info. We need people buiyng a new tokens not sitting tight and happy with high inflation rewards for deluted token.
I don’t think increased inflation create more demand thats create selling preassure this is a fact. See how many other projects decided to reduce inflation around the same bear market period. Even introduced burning. The projects with real utilities. See how our project struggle to build a new liquidity. Majority of believers just staking and accummulating tokens. We need a token value to bring a new people and liquidity.
Regarding the tokens undelegated we have other factors around like the bull run stage, general market situation, risk management etc. We need to keep in mind Liquid staked token LP too. STKXPRT compete with traditional staking so now LP is much more profitable. I would expect the project believers will gravitade more towards LP…
Per the mechanism the staking rewards will increase when more people move to lp…
