start the conversation atm... is there going to be modelling for various scenarios on how healthy/unhealthy Ergo could/will be in x years to weigh up pros cons of extending the emissions?
What downsides are there? Can't think of much apart from having to wait longer for emission to end.
There's plenty of speculation, but I'm not sure how to weigh it all in total, I think the emissions should remain as is, or maybe make the remission of mining rewards entirely voluntarily, make it so that remitting to the re-emission contract causes some re-emission tokens to be given to one, and then once emissions would be zero, have it so that miners with re-emission tokens can claim emissions from the re-emission contract by sending the tokens back to the re-emission contract along with mining a new block, then after 720 blocks if the new block is still confirmed then the re-emission contract sends them a re-emission, so they only get re-emissions if they have been saving re-emission tokens to collect them.
My position is extending just to make that clear. Just thinking of possibilities. There is that one, reputation/percention, miner kick back maybe
There are some models for storage rent done before mainnet launch even, can cover them in a follow up post. We can use current utxo set size with them, however, how realistic model assumptions are is a big question, also, storage rent rewards do need for some smoothening otherwise block rewards will be very uneven
And please note 16 or 20 years after storage rent would be much bigger, as many lost utxos will pay in recurrent fashion
Обсуждают сегодня