@ bjoernek
I disagree with this statement. Voting rewards should not be written as XDR in this chart. This is because voting rewards are roughly proportional to the total staked amount. Voting rewards are issued in ICP, not XDR. If the overall value (market cap) of ICP doubles, the 15x on the chart becomes 30x. Therefore, voting rewards should be expressed as a percentage. On the other hand, Node rewards are paid in XDR and a fixed cost, if no nodes are added and ignore change of OPEX. So XDR notation is correct for node rewards and cycles burned.
Some people suggest increasing the computational(cycle) cost. I think the burning cycles should be equal to the reward for node providers, in the future when IC is mass adopted. At that moment, total cost has to be equal with total reward. But now, computational costs should not be increased to suppress inflation. Rather, we need to accelerate the mass adoption of IC.
The IC Network has reached the minimum target number of nodes for decentralization. This means that the network’s reward growth will not accelerate unless cycle burning increases further. From January 2022 to now, the number of cycles burned has increased by 11.6 times. It makes me optimistic about the future of the network and the balance of costs and rewards.
If the reward and cost are of similar size, only voting rewards determine inflation. As I’ve written before (link, please read it), inflation is fine as long as it doesn’t fluctuate dramatically. And inflation actually helps and attracts newbies.
If there are no critical reasons such as death spiral, I will vote against the proposal changing tokenomics. I think there is no critical reason to change here.
Tokenomics must be stable.