Dragginz DKP (SNS-1) Tokenomics

IMO part of what makes SNS1/DKP so unique/attractive is the limited supply available. I’m curious as to why can’t game users just transact with 0.01 SNS? and so on? I don’t believe in stirring the pot and messing around with the supply.


Deflationary model without harming the operations would be great.

How about coming up with some numbers, let say 1 billion tokens, 20% (+,- ) to be used for rewards and some expenses payments for the next 10 or 20 years…

If required, burned tokens can be minted up to a total of mint QTY minus 1%. Example, in the first year if 3% of DKP burned, Overall tokens 97% (first year 100% -1=99% maximum amount can be minted first year, second year 98%, and so on, perhaps after 2 years reduce by 0.5% per year…)

So DKP token deflationary yet can be minted if required while being deflationary.

Origyn has somewhat similar tokenomics


It would be more like 0.0000001 SNS that’s the issue.

We’ll be just increasing everybody’s tokens by 800k (as an example), so the supply is just as limited but the decimal place moves.


SNS1 should be different from an inside inflationary/deflationary token.

SLP from AXS suffered a lot from endless inflation

Make decimals DKP and leave SNS-1 for governance


You can use smaller units, (ex: 1 SNS1= 1000000 DKP) it is like Satoshi is a smaller unit of Bitcoin.

I don’t like inflation.

I think revenue from costumes and copyright fees would be better.


Agree with @reyrayz as I really like the limited supply of the 1st SNS token what ever its name is. Just feels cozy.
Even if value stays the same

But its your project and completely get that decimal places wont work on an in game token

Look at Ordinals on BTC. I spend 5 minutes just counting the zeros before I make a transaction. Does my head in every time

Again would be cool to keep the SNS-1/DKP to original 10k limit somehow
Maybe if you wanted to participate in the game you could burn your SNS-1/DKP for 10,000x, 100,000x or whatever for game tokens?

Also not sure about unlocking already staked Neurons. That will double the liquid supply in an instant and probs devalue the token in an instant?


Well our 51% would always be locked and wont ever be liquid supply


Sorry I must have mis understood this sentence?

“At this point we envision to be able to unlock the token and the token holder can then choose to opt in to locking and voting, or not.”

That would be if and when we increased the token supply. We’d have to manually mint and give new tokens to people.

1 Like

Does that mean all the locked tokens will become liquid?

1 Like

Yeah, I guess thats my point. All those new tokens will be liquid for a time when minted. Up to you/us to make the same locked commitment & keep the supply proportionally low like it is now.
Hard to do when the price of the token keeps mooning

At present >50% of tokens are locked for >100 years or whatever. So the 10k supply is really <5k for our life times. Makes the SNS-1/DKP ultra rare for a token.

Not an expert by any means, just my feedback :clinking_glasses:


What if you did a combination.

  1. converting the current tx burn mechanism to a tax that goes to a development fund wallet.
  2. rewards from liquidity (i assume all that fresh liquidity is you).
  3. and then inflation to cover the rest.

The first two require no inflation, but are ofc the funds generated will probably be minimal for some time and are dependent upon activity and price action. But anything to reduce the inflation. Additional mechanisms that don’t require it.


I agree with this. There could be a final mechanism where the main neuron burns excess rewards either by buying DKP items and giving them away or just by burning what is not needed.

you could use the voting rewards from an icp neuron to fund cycles. this way inflation inherent to the network would be used, with no swapping of dkp/icp necessary.

1 Like

Well what we may have to do is take 10,000, add 7,999,990,000 and then dish that out proportionally. So only 1/800k of the value is actually locked up. We’re sort of tied by the SNS but the team are helping us.

That was our original plan until the price went to Goblin Town.

We could still do it but I’m not sure that at $3 the amount of ICP we could put in a Neuron could cover the game development.


Well, yeah. If we’re not funding the development by inflating the token, then we’re probably not going to be burning it either. All the revenue the game makes will go to the hosting and development costs and we’d retain a buffer. Would make no sense to burn it.


From the perspective of an old gamer the following would not be appealing…

with a transfer fee of 0.00001 SNS the cost of sending the microtransaction far exceeds its value.


The supply is definitely going to increase by multiple orders of magnitude, it has to or it would be a nightmare. Our rough back of napkin calculations are based on dividing the supply by the number of players we had at Neopets (it’s nice to have goals.)


readability is important!


As a former dragginz helper I support this message