How can we relate to the indicator of the circulating volume of tokens? Coin market cap shows 34 million tokens. Is this not the amount from which it is worth starting?
As far as I remember, when listing, an information letter came from one of the exchanges, which indicated the circulating volume of tokens at 28 million, so that only from that moment an additional 6 million tokens could get into the market. And hardly these 6 million could turn out of 4.
I forgot to add about the pressure from the discord community.33 thousand is the total mass. There are about 10 active wallets, let’s average the value to 15 reward tokens, let’s assume that half of them are exactly holding stakes. we will get about 75 thousand coins. Of this amount, most of it has already been sold for sure.
Inflation Rate: Dynamically adjusted rate that undergoes an initial hyper-inflationary period followed by an indefinite stabilization period with a goal of 50%+ of NOM staked with nodes.
Agree - as stated earlier the teams assumptions were likely made in different market conditions to what actually transpired at launch as such the “Dynamically adjusted inflation rate” mechanism falls short on balancing the 3 core inputs
*Inflation
*Staking rate
*Rewards printed
Any adjustment to the existing “Dynamically adjusted inflation rate” mechanism should seek to find a Balance between these 3 core inputs so it doesn’t swing around wildly nor just go up one way oblivious to changing market forces, and if it does the “Dynamically adjusted inflation rate” mechanism adjusts accordingly to compensate.
Over a measured amount of time the inflation rate could return to the default cosmos rate or dynamically adjust if needed and increase then decrease again if needed thus incentivizing market participants to act in the best interest of the protocol.
At the end of the day price is only the focus if debts, obligations or burn ( i.e. runway is depleting) is applying pressure - the core focus is the mission and this is to release products which the market values - short term fluctuations are to be expected in price if products fall behind release schedules or competitive forces adapt quicker as speculators will react to their Short term sentiment.
In a scenario when the Onex is released along with some other core road map milestones and an upgrade to the Dynamically adjusted inflation rate” mechanism that balanced the 3 inputs we could see the inflation rate brought down to cosmos levels but trying to manage the sentiment of speculators using only one way mechanisms is a fools errand ; )
2 Likes
I think it is the next logical step, before Onex the APR should be lower to reach 20%. Short term investers are taking advantage of the high APR, becoming a sell force that’s bringing the price lower.
But CMC indicated that the maximum supply is 122 million. 
Therefore, I am not sure that the information of 34 million can be considered as true.
However, they can use 20 million tokens (20% Ecosystem to support further decentralization of the ecosystem) + what was minted via BCO + 5 million allocated from DAO + staking reward that is not locked.
I fully agree with you. The release of long-awaited products can greatly change the situation, and then communication about the level of inflation will be almost irrelevant.
-
How valuable do you think to the ecosystem are the people who are here because of the high percentage of staking? For example, I keep my NOM tokens not because of the high percentage, but because I believe in the project and will keep it regardless of the staking percentage. I see the staking reward as a nice bonus. This raises the question, if people who believe in the project will continue to store tokens, then is it necessary to focus on people who are here only for the sake of a high percentage and should we be afraid that they will go to sell their tokens?
-
Let’s think about the other side. Imagine that you are an investor who has just heard about a project and you like it. But you can see that the APR is over 100% and the price of the token is gradually decreasing. Will you invest in such a project? The thing is, by maintaining a high APR, we may be sacrificing the loss of new long-term investors, but we are trying to keep the current token holders who are here for the high APR.
-
It is likely that the people who will potentially be dumping tokens after the APR decline are currently withdrawing and selling staking rewards as they see the benefit in the short term. That is, when there is a small percentage of APR in the future, they will withdraw their tokens anyway, and also they are now selling tokens received from staking. Perhaps it would be more beneficial for the ecosystem to lower APR now and not wait for inflation to decrease on schedule. Of course, it can be said that over time Onomy will be more stable and the sale of these people’s tokens will not affect the price, but I am in favor of going through the APR reduction early on (maybe of course I’m wrong about this). Especially if there is a massive sale of tokens, then for many people who believe in the project it will be an excellent opportunity to buy tokens
-
By the way, what can be considered a high APR? Is it just APR over 100% or could it be 50% for example? And will people run to sell their tokens that are here for the sake of a high APR if the rate is, for example, 50%?
On the first point.
The value of these people is that they have shown all of us that such a situation as now can arise. And if you look at it in global terms, then the problem is clearly not in people … personally, my opinion 
on the second point. The first thing I would pay attention to as an investor is the idea, then who is in the team, next, how much development is actively going on and in the last place I would look at the price of the token. And if an investor has evaluated a couple of dozen or hundreds of projects, then he should understand that with such tokenomics, he will have to wait not for the market, but for the launch of the flagship application in the form of forex. But only my subjective opinion. But we are having a discussion here in order to isolate the truth from the grains of assumptions
I cannot understand this proposal. If today I have 1 token that represents a value unit and tomorrow I have 2 tokens, then this still represents a value unit of the same equivalent.
Screwing around with inflation does not change this. Instead, it is better to increase the added value of the token itself. Demand and utility is required.
I would even argue that the opposite is the case. Because high inflation bind the tokens. This is the only value that the token currently has. If this is removed, it will certainly not contribute to “stability” imho.
If the team is seriously thinking about changing the percentage of staking, it means that the sale of tokens in such a volume from the rewards received does not bring value to the project. After all, if this were not the case, then the question of changing the percentage of staking would not arise. But if you consider that the value of these people is that they showed the problem of hyperinflation at an early stage in the development of the project, then yes, this is their value.
You are right about people. I also want to clarify that I do not consider the situation that has arisen to be a problem of people who sell tokens. The actions of people in this situation is only one of the factors, and the main reason is hyperinflation. They do what they think is right, and their actions seem logical. However, their actions are being discussed as they affect or may affect the Onomy ecosystem, including the debate about changing staking rewards.
Great. Speaking as an investor, you did not mention the staking percentage when choosing a token as one of the main factors. Then it might be wise to lower the percentage of staking rewards so that tokens are not created in such a large volume due to hyperinflation. Indeed, in my opinion, for those who believe in the project, high or low APR is not the main criterion for holding or selling a token. We also have more than 50% percent of the tokens in the DAO or blocked at the moment. Therefore, there should not be a situation that in the near future we will have less than 50% staked coins.
Why not then make a dynamic interest rate milking those who sell the token? Why should everyone suffer losses?
Why not, you can suggest to the community the idea of introducing a system of penalties for early withdrawal of staking. But I’m not sure if this is feasible on the Cosmos SDK. Although I believe that the introduction of penalties will not change anything in a global sense and will not be useful to the community, this may be an occasion for discussion with other participants.
About losses. What kind of losses are we talking about if you do not pay to receive staking rewards. In the case of staking, you only receive coins. In my opinion, this can hardly even be called an unrealized loss, since a rate cut can positively affect the Onomy ecosystem, including the value of the token in the future. Yes, you will get fewer tokens for staking, but it’s hard to call it a loss.
In any case, I will be fine with either option (leave everything as it is, or introduce a default staking reward) and it will not affect my commitment to the project. I also offered my own implementation.
Think I have exhaustively shared my opinion and will now be watching for ideas from other participants. Thank you for taking part in communication with me
Increase lock time. 3 months, 6 or 12 months like other projects.
We should put this up for a vote ASAP. We need to lower inflation.
While we will not get the same amount of staking rewards, the positive impact of lowering inflation will be better long term. Plus if you have half a brain, you’ll just buy nom now on the cheap, much better than waiting for the rewards. Staking is better for voting on governence.
Also please make onomyX token for us mutants, thank you. Or ELSE 
2 Likes
I have been staking 7500 Noms for a while. This OIP reduces my staking reward, but it is not important. The main issue is that high apy kills the price. If the price is being killed, than the project seems unsuccessfull. So, I support “Lower Staking Reward”. Because I love this project and I belive this project.
1 Like
Congratulations to the community for getting more than 50% of the vote. This kind of mobilization rarely seen🙏