I’m not worried about current inflation cause:
- Lots of it comes from Genesis neuron unlocks
- The IC has incredible potential, so I don’t mind temporarily diluting token value to increase my token holdings cause I know if devs keep building and the network can become deflationary I’ll benefit from my temporary loss, it’s unlikely price will raise at the moment even if no more tokens were minted, I’d rather accumulate by buying and staking so when the bull comes back I have as many ICPs as possible.
Developers already have Dfinity issued grants, maturity coming from the NNS which can be invested via SNS and community fund and possibly in future an NNS treasury, imo that is already a lot.
Such a system will make it harder to predict tokens issuance, I think we are getting too ahead of ourselves with all these proposed changes to tokenomics, imo our priority should be to make sure operational costs for devs are as low as possible and APR for staking is as high as it can be while still allowing deflation with realistic network usage, reaching that sweet spot should be our goal instead of favouring one side.
Basing issuance on burn rate will make it harder to estimate how this goal can be achieved and add yet another value we have to spend time and effort tweaking. In my opinion at the moment we have more concerning stuff to care about than inflation caused by staking such as this one: Question regarding RE EXC-1168: add non-subsidised storage cost on 20+ node subnets (behind the flag) - #17 by Zane