We could just make minimal amount to deploy 1 ICP (worth in Cycles).
ICP’s tokenomics is one of the most sophisticated and complex subject to discuss compare to any other projects. Fixing & changing the current running tokenomics will not be as easy without upsetting some stakeholders. We have 5 stakeholders (End Users, NNS governance participants, Project Developers, Node providers & the Dfinity foundation itself as the major contributor of the protocol) who is each has their own interests.
An idea for ICP community could pool fund and make an ICP tokenomics redesign proposal contest. This to attract professional economists who are proficient in designing better tokenometrics that are fair for every stakeholders. Who are the judges ? All the 5 stakeholders.
3 Likes
I totally agree
Let’s keep moving forward
I have a MA in applied economics, is that good enough? Haha. But I know that there’s no reason to believe me until I present proof…
Right now I don’t think the tokenomics of this project are bad at all. The token inflation is not too much, as documented above. The main issue is demand. We can work on the supply side all we want but these aren’t real fixes. The real fix is to get people using the internet computer, buying ICP, and burning tokens.
As proof of this, just think of any of the deflationary shitcoins that popped up during the bull run which are now worth approximately zero. Sure, the supply was shrinking for those tokens, but demand withered away much faster.
Deflationary tokenomics sound nice but in reality they amount only to a slow shifting inward of the supply curve. Unless the demand curve stays put or moves outward, you won’t see price increase.
The same is true of inflationary tokenomics. It sounds bad, but price won’t fall unless the demand curve stays in place or shifts inward. We have seen demand destruction in our first year. Price was driven quite high by speculators and those with other interests. and since this point demand has cratered. The solution is more adoption.
5 Likes
But wouldn’t you agree to modulate supply based on demand as one more factor to take into account? seems like a balanced solution
If you want to convince other stakeholders with your proposal, you need to layout your thesis paper with detail calculation, include with the econometrics modelling.
As you mention, that the solution is more adoption, I completely agree, But it still need more clarification, detail info and measurement. Such as, at what specific level of adoption is needed for ICP tokenomics to start being healthy ? What level of minimum average Cycle burn rate need to achieve to balance the ICP maturity reward minting rate ? What parameter of the tokenomics to prove that current model is sustainable ?
What I’m still curious is, what makes dfinity foundation choose this tokenomics model from the beginning? I believe they have done their research, and if they want to calm the anxious community members who doubt the sustainability of the tokenomics, they should transparently show their icp tokenomics research / thesis paper to the community.
4 Likes
That’s right, they should explain why they adopted this tokennomics.
1 Like
Bull Market Coming Someday
If there’s no improvement, no one will care about us.
Startups that put investors in despair will not succeed
one more question.
Is 8-year staking inspired by the Dfinity logo? Why is the maximum period 8 years?
Here is a link to a table of the Genesis neurons, which can be filtered and sorted.
These are the “GTC” neurons (seed, early contributor). There are also non-GTC “neurons that immediately started dissolving from Genesis”, though it seems like you’re interested in the GTC neurons.
Hey @Dylan ,
Wow, Sweet!!! Thx Dylan - never could figure out which columns for ascending/descending order.
When you say GTC - I would most certainly be interested in seeing every party. Sort of high level thinking here:
1. Seed/Strategic - monthly vesting, 4 years/3 years respectively? (I think so). Starting w/Genisys. Easy enough to differentiate neurons by looking at relative dissolve quantities in relation to total token allocation on Genesis
2. DFINITY - Has known nueron numbers, easy to parse this data
3. Presale - Known vesting schedule, monthly from Genesis over 1 yr
4. Early contributors (StringLabs/Fenbushi/Amino/Sequioa/And a few others?) - Unknown vesting schedule. (Perhaps no vesting schedule?)
5. Team Members - Monthly vesting over 4 year period, implied 6% dissolve rate assuming diego’s old sell for tax purposes assumption is correct (No clue how to link another thread within this subthread 
)
I suppose not totally interested in many of the smaller parties with token allocations from Genisis.
The goal would be to utilize this data to expand upon Kyle’s neuron dissolving analysis. Such data would allow us to refine the dissolve schedules by party - effectively providing us more granulation in the data.
From here, we could then pinpoint which “Whales” who have chosen to hold/who have chosen to dissolve.
Does this analysis exist anywhere @diegop / @Kyle_Langham ?
Would be helpful in the context of pondering the circulating supply related questions.
1 Like
GTC neurons are only seed round and early contributor neurons. You can see all of the seed round and early contributor “accounts” here:
For the seed round, each account was divided into 48 neurons, with the dissolve delays set so that one neuron dissolves each month (4 years to dissolve all neurons). For early contributor, similar deal, but each account was divided into 31 neurons (2.5 years to dissolve all neurons) instead of 48.
3 Likes
I just want to point out that I don’t think you’re using the same definition of ICP circulating supply as the one used by Coinmarketcap, CoinGecko, Coinbase, etc., and defined here:
https://wiki.internetcomputer.org/wiki/Total_supply,_circulating_supply,_and_staked_ICP
Under this definition, staking ICP does not remove ICP from the circulating supply. So the ICP in the neurons of 8-year gang and everyone else in the community who has staked since Genesis is part of the circulating supply.
The only real ways to decrease the circulating supply are burning circulating ICP or DFINITY purchasing circulating ICP.
3 Likes
Holy smokes…Amazing! Wish I could go back in time and change my degree to programming - thanks so much man. Great start for me.
2 Likes
Thanks for the Hat Tip! Interesting write up here…
Not even sure I can wrap my head around the second half of that paragraph…article indicates funds that could theoretically disburse are considered part of the circulating supply - regardless of increasing/stopping dissolve.
Tell me I’m a fool where I think I’m going down a rabbit hole 
- circulating supply is a projection of theoretical dissolve according to vesting schedule, and not actual dissolves?..
Got ya on the miswording of Non-circulating supply vs. Circulating supply. Thanks again man - immense wealth of knowledge.
3 Likes
My mind is blown, Dylan.
Feeling like a horse at the Great Lakes. Will dig into deeper from here 
3 Likes
So it could be said that we are not so bad? or have I not understood anything?
I went down this rabbit hole a few months ago and put out some articles on my Substack that dove into the data around genesis neurons. Feel free to read through those articles (https://kylelangham.substack.com/) to get more answers. From the top of my memory: almost all early contributors are/have been dissolving their neurons. For seed rounders, a good percentage upped their neurons to 8 years and the remainder (maybe half?) are/have been dissolving.
2 Likes
Thank you for this. I have been wondering why it didn’t seem to add up. These definitions are helpful.