@LeonoorsCryptoman I am a little dumb founded that community members (including validators) would be encouraging what appears to be a lack of foresight in maintaining security in the network prior to a critical time for Persistence, whether intentional or not.
I don’t think you are an enemy of the project, more a lack of thought and me not understanding the thinking behind such comments in this post. I do acknowledge that you were against the proposal in the forum post that I read on the reduction which confuses me even more to your comments now.
It would be good to see more participation for sure. I also acknowledge that Jeroen did support Prop 109, but with recent comments I think he seen the error in it as well.
What I would like to see is validators and community members to support the project. It is pretty obvious that the mass exit of stakers was because of Prop 109, not a smart move which hurt the network security.
I hope you do care, maybe just in a different way to me.
Well I do think with the mass exit of stakers you might be wrong on that.
What real problems? I didn’t see any until Prop 109. The team was doing there job and building a use case while expanding Persistence’s reach. The only purported problem I was hearing was around inflation reduction. Which I found funny since we only just came out of reduction prior the to forum discussion on another reduction, it didn’t make sense, the current 59% delegation situation is proof of that.
And if you noticed I did reach out to Pawel_PK to get his/her response, after all it was Pawel_PK’s post about the reduction that put all this into play.
Do note that the massive undelegation occured in October / November, while the parameter change from #109 was in June. So there is zero to none correlation to be found for inflation parameters and undelegations.
However, there is correlation about the other major assets where more profits were to be made and were probably a lot of people went to. Data would support that if you look at the price of BTC and XRP around that time.
So as said, I do think we are having the wrong conversation here. It should surely not be around the staking percentage and the relation to the staking APR, but to the beliefs of delegators in general and the possible related profits. And that is a completely different situation. As @Pawel_PK rightfully indicates there is also zero proof from other chains that changing inflation parameters has any measurable effect on whether people buy an asset. Even stronger, chains are reducing inflation because it has been proven to be hurtful for a chain to have an inflation higher than a couple %.
Hence the conversation here, since the complete conversation started around the proposal to make the inflation higher again and the fact that it went on chain without any proper discussion. On Osmosis for example we managed to achieve that in general a draft needs to be on the forum for a couple of days to gather feedback. And note how few proposals fail on Osmosis due to a lack of proper reasoning.
But to make a long story short, I am comfortable with the fact that I am the only validator voting against. It will still pass, that is for sure unless something spectacular is happening. And in a couple of weeks we can see that it didn’t make a difference in staking percentage and we can (hopefully) have the right conversation at that time.
Thank you for that, as you can tell I am passionate.
Here is a screenshot I just took of Smart Stake Analytics https://analytics.smartstake.io/persistence/stats#staking which shows that from July 2024 undelegations started to increase with a mass of undelegations starting in September and ending at the beginning of 2025.
This happened just after the vote took place in June 2024, PLEASE tell me how this met the objectives of Prop 109
I have been buying tokens since XPRT was $10 and have been buying all the way down and buy whenever I get the chance. I have a passion for Persistence as I know it will do very well. After Persistence announced that it was building for Bitcoin interoperability my buying increased, and I still buy every chance I get.
Once again still looking at other projects, I will say it again.
You are focusing on the value of BTC not the movement of BTC! Persistence’s business model is moving Bitcoin around not its value. Do you get this, Persistence will be moving Bitcoin around and there are TX fees involved with this movement. The more that is moved around for BTCfi the more fees come in, it has got nothing to do with value or the bull run being over. These governments, ETF funds, and banks will hold regardless of the value. They will put these holdings to work so they can make money, are you seeing it yet. Persistence has the most important role in BTCfi and we are first to market, do you know what that means. I will give you a clue $$$$$. So when I see bad ideas that can harm Persistence’s chance at being a champion I will defend it to the best of my ability. I really hope this sinks in my friend.
I agree with that, but more trading also in general involves more movement And since movement will be the focal point we can’t ignore the relation to how BTC in general behaves
I’ve read the response, but your graph has a delay of a couple of months between passing the proposal and the actual undelegation. If you are looking for reasoning, then that is a way to long period of time to base conclusions on. Anyone doing data analysis will tell you that (and I have done my fair share on that field).
So I would urge you to also read the reasoning others have, because only that will help us further.
In the end we all want Persistence to be successful, we only disagree on the how at this specific moment regarding the restoring of XPRT inflation. I don’t think we disagree on the long term tbh.
@LeonoorsCryptoman I still don’t think you get what I am trying to say here.
Trading has nothing to do with BTCfi, BTCfi is when investor move Bitcoin around to get the best returns for themselves as holders, it is investment, and investors will chase returns. You cannot go on bitcoin’s history or historical data either as BTCfi is a whole new thing that is happening in the industry. There is no data to go on it is new never been done before so I don’t know why you keep talking about data or trading it is irreverent.
Trading doesn’t involve movement of Bitcoin from BTCfi’s point of view or Persistence’s either. Trading involves BTC being moved from wallets to exchanges and back. The movement I am talking about is Bitcoin L2’s where people put BTC to work as an investment tool, very different from what you are suggesting. This is why Persistence is well positioned for this new direction of the industry, Persistence will be first to market with this industries new direction.
From a tech dev point of view yes but not from an investors point of view. Investors look for returns so they will not straight away unstake they will wait until it gets close to the date before unstaking as shown by the data to maximize returns before leaving.
It’s clear to me now that you and others don’t have an investment mind set but more of a tech dev mind set, as shows by our conversation. That’s ok I now see data is your strong point and investor mind set is mine, nothing wrong with that.
Being an investor my reasoning is I see strong security and a strong mainnet launch as very important. As a Persistence community member that see’s the potential of what Persistence will become gets my utmost support, and the reason why as an investor I never left. Not all investors will support chains as I have, they will leave when things reduce their returns. I see both perspectives here and it makes it hard for me to see what has happened over the last 6 months that’s all. Your reasoning it seems is data based and that is ok, just different perspectives I guess.
I just think that we could have waited 6 months or more after the mainnet launch to do this, it would have made more sense from a investor and security point of view.
100% I agree here, I just wish the halving happen after the mainnet launch, and for the benefit of Persistence. I suppose finding a middle ground between tech dev’s and investors is hard and the problem that the industry faces. Well what has been done has been done, so we will have to see how this now plays out. Maybe in future forum posts validators and investor/wallet holders can work together to come up with middle ground that works for both sides and Persistence’s future.
But for now we need to restore the inflation if only for a short time. After mainnet launch when persistence starts to get the returns the inflation can go to zero. I know from your point of view that is pain for Persistence, but there is no gain without pain as they say. after all it is only for a short time.
The pain felt here now is the lost of network security, the pain felt before was inflation. The question is which pain hurts more? With around 50% of circulating supply out there that leaves around 50% still to be distributed, I think there is enough room for inflation to go on a little longer.
Also a 50% burn or any burn as was suggested above I don’t think would be a good idea either. With 403,308,352 million tokens and half already circulating is already a small supply. Others chains have much larger supplies and burning makes sense for them. In my opinion it would make the token way to volatile, in an investor point of view.
In fact, there were more. They were voiced in this topic. Personally, I did not have the courage to say openly about what Cosmos Hub did with liquid staking, which was essentially invented by Persistence, but then it was ruined by the ecosystem. But this is a fact that was voiced by llildur
And if we are talking about Prop 109, it also did not appear out of nowhere. The team wanted to launch full integration of BTCfi before this block, but as far as I understand, it did not work out. Therefore, all these reductions worked to nowhere.
So let’s look back and forth. The base had a network and of course there was delegation, like any Cosmos project. The network needs specialization. Initially, LS was planned, it didn’t work out. Then there was a rebranding to BTC, it seemed like the process was underway, but the deadlines were shifted.
What’s next? As far as I understand, everything remains the same, we are heading for BTC, everything is being implemented according to the developed plan, just with a shift in deadlines.
There are still questions about what will happen to staking, what will happen to holders’ income, validators income, what will be earnings for anyone (except liquid staking and liquidity providing). And I don’t even want to talk about token price, because it’s all predictions only. So, to all those questions, I believe, only the team can answer, because the strategic plan is in their hands.
Hey Thanks for this, it is helpful to understand this.
Maybe I mistook what was said by @llildur but put this way helps me understand, I’m not really a tech guy. In saying what you said above it is hard to build something involving a co network if you would call Comos network that, that undermines your work. So credit to the Persistence team for having the resilience to recover from this set back. Just goes to show how good this team is I would say.
Well that makes sense, this just goes to show the resourcefulness of the Persistence team again never giving up. Also why the choice to restore the inflation and get delegations and security back on chain. A fast and fair recovery for the Persistence team. Knowing this has strengthened my interest and faith in Persistence and how awesome this team is, very impressed.
I would rather see a late launch than a rush to release, just makes sense. So I have to thank you @paranormal for bringing this up as it gives me renewed confidence in Persistence and the team.
As a validator you would have more of an insight into the operations than me. I can say I have been a Persistence supporter for years now and you clarifying this for me now has given me more confidence in this project. I just have this sixth sense that Persistence is going to be a game changer for Bitcoin interoperability and the industry as a whole.
I really don’t think token price will be an issue once we are up and running. The Persistence team will just keep powering on, I think bringing more and more innovation to the market as a whole.
Although I agree, in crypto this is a very very thin balance.
Look for example to Stride vs QuickSilver. Stride went live earlier, with a slightly less well working product than QuickSilver had at that point in time. However, since Stride released earlier QuickSilver held their horses and delayed.
That can be the same for BTC-related topics. A lot of these markets are winner-takes-all markets, and being the first (even with an initial inferior product) helps capture market share.
I leave the decision to the team, but it is surely something to consider.
Over the last month, has “Restoring XPRT Inflation to Strengthen Staking & Security” worked? @Noni@paranormal . Some might say that it’s less time to evaluate, but then what is the correct time?
In the spirit of contribution I will offer my thoughts on your question, and be clear that my point of view is subjective in the absence of pre-planned and agreed measures. If proposal 109 had included planned measures of success then we might not be having this discussion. This proposal has clearer measures. The stated goal is to make XPRT staking more attractive once APR is back around 20% . Based on this, waiting until APR is back around 20% is the correct time to evaluate.
Further thoughts:
As we know the macro is extremely volatile with many unprecedented moving parts.
It stands to reason competition for investor capital high.
The APR% is being restored gradually, which means investors can get a better return elsewhere.
The best place to focus is for the team to deliver more utility to $XPRT.
The Babylon community voting 95% in favour of launching Persistence DEX is a fantastic step forward for the Persistence team and us.
@valsub It will be a slow and arduous recovery from the damage done by Prop 109, the undelegations are still happening and the % staked is still dropping which will put sell pressure on XPRT. The only thing I see that may help a quick recovery of stakers is the Babylon connection with the Persistence DEX, getting Persistence’s name out there to more investors. The Persistence team needs to come up with some good marketing to get attention back on XPRT. Having the actual return APR just above 11% after fees is still higher than other returns out there at the moment which maybe attractive to investors. The only thing I see that will keep investors away is seeing the community voting yes on harmful proposals, bad decisions do not attract support and investment. I understand that from a tech view it may make sense but not from security and investment point of view.
Thank you for the reply. I noticed the APR has only increased slightly. At the current pace, it may take another five months to reach 20%. Would it be more effective to propose an immediate adjustment to hit the target now, or is it better to let it progress gradually over the coming months? @dneorej, what are your thoughts?
Yes, 5 months or so. This blog speaks to how long. Based on the article time stamp there’s approx 150 days to go before APR is fully restored.
I’m glad you tagged Jeroen because I’d also like to learn why inflation can be halved immediately, but takes 6 months to increase… I can only guess the design does not support a once off immediate increase, only incremental block by block increases over time.
That makes sense; however, a six-month iteration cycle is quite long, especially for the fast-paced nature of the crypto industry. Let’s wait on what the team has to say.
In general I’d say gradual changes are better than sudden shocks. Sudden shocks might take people off guard and then it’s hard to predict reactions. Although in this case it’s hard to say, since the programmed inflation halving was also an immediate adjustment.
Not fully. The cosmos sdk is designed to let inflation adjust gradually over time based on the staking ratio (compared to the desired staking ratio parameter). There are however some boundaries set in the parameters (the min and max inflation) so that the inflation stays within a desired range. Now all inflation adjustments are actually done by changing that range.
Let me show you how this range has changed over time throughout the events:
Date
Event
min inflation
max inflation
context
30/03/2021
Genesis
25
45
13/5/2023
Prop 23
12.5
25
done because blocktime was 6s instead of 5s (leading to first halving in august 23 only)
12/06/2023
Prop 35
12.5
25
done to avoid the actual pre-programmed halving to happen in august
09/06/2024
Prop 109
6.25
12.5
done to reduce inflation as it was deemed to high
12/3/2025
Block 21038400
3.125
6.25
done automatically
17/3/2025
Prop 132
6.25
12.5
done to restore inflation
Now what’s important to note is that on 12/3/2025, the actual current inflation was HIGHER than the maximum 6.25%, which is why you saw the sudden shock to 6.25% to keep it in range. Then on 17/3, the inflation was EXACTLY 6.25%. Therefore, it was (and remains) in range, hence it changes slowly towards the upper limit as long as the staking ratio of 67% is not reached.
And since movement will be the focal point we can’t ignore the relation to how BTC in general behaves 