Dragginz DKP (SNS-1) Tokenomics

Maybe the neuron can be the starting point and depending on the price of ICP and rewards rate the inflation of DKP changes to meet funding needs

One does not simply leave the Dragginz community


Hi @Thyassa,

This is Georgi from the NNS team.

Thanks for sharing your ideas for SNS features. Let me shed some light on these.

Change token symbol

As @lara mentioned previously, this functionality exists on the ledger but it is currently not exposed to the SNS projects as a feature. We gave it some thought after we heard it the first time a couple of weeks ago and concluded that it is not a trivial change. Given the current workload, this was pushed back for now. We will revisit it once we finish the work on token minting.

Increase the number of tokens in circulation

We recently got a similar request from @modclub and since we had a few free cycles on the team we decided to prioritize it. We’ll follow with some details here on the forum within the next day or two and will ask the community for input. Getting this into mainnet is likely to be quick, should there be positive feedback.

Hope this helps in understanding the big picture.


Just commenting, not advice or anything useful from me here…

It sounds like you just need to rip the bandaid off and max-out the total supply - it might hurt at first, but DKP/SNS1 kinda has a cult following, forgive me as I don’t know the difference between cult and community, they seem the same to me. But, I don’t think it’s a bad thing… if you look at meme coins with astronomical total supply and meme coin enthusiasts who purchase them with the dream of becoming rich quick, you could possibly max the supply and get a bunch of meme coiners to buy into the project and raise the price quickly - it might solve all your problems. I’m horrible at explaining my thoughts, my brain works different, so hopefully you get what I’m trying to convey.

1 Like

Well to play devil’s advocate (I have no issues with increasing the supply personally) but there could always be a workaround similar to satoshis for btc. For example there are some platforms that work with such small amounts of bitcoin their value display is measured in number of satoshis (whole number) rather than represented via decimal BTC balance. That would be a pretty clean option if it was really necessary to maintain current supply. No idea what we’d call these micro units though…


Ok, thanks for the reply. What if there are more voting rewards given in the inflation mechanism than tokens burning in the deflation mechanism. could that cause dilution?

1 Like

Yes, that could dilute your effective voting power as a proportion of total voting power if people choose to stake those tokens for additional voting power and you don’t stake yours.

In a system where all tokens were initially in neurons, you could only dilute your voting power by choosing not to stake your voting rewards, or by not voting on all the proposals and thus getting fewer rewards. And of course, the actual effect depends on the behavior of other participants - are they voting and staking rewards?


Ouch! I wasnt even looking at it that way. Horrible typo possibilities too. I can see where you need to cover more than that 100x gap I was looking at.

Simply displaying the micro unit as a whole number does not solve the problem of higher transfer cost over transaction value. If current supply were maintained there would be a need to lower the transfer fee in SNS-1 to satisfy the cost/value disparity.

Example: Using the value I cited from Borovan earlier of 0.0000001 SNS. Regardless of what we call this unit or how it is visually represented in UI the unit is still 0.0000001 SNS. So although you see a whole number in your UI the cost you will pay will exceed the value you send without fee modifications. Because the fee to send the 0.0000001 SNS is 0.00001 SNS or if looked at in terms of the micro unit the 1 micro unit would cost 100 micro units to send.


yeah, when you have put 8 zeros but you put 7 or less it’s gonna be a nightmare. As Cogo said you need to take your time and count them to make sure it’s right. Also there’s gonna be a mix of people playing the game and dealing with a lot of zeros to buy/sell something it ain’t pretty and most likely people will find it very confusing.


Nice,i like your idea, like bitcoin satoshi

1 Like

I think there will need to be an airdrop for SNS1 = DKP holders, in % between SNS1 and DKP, an IDO sale for newbies and DKP airdrops for new users to register dragginzgame and experience the game
For example, the project buys back 1000,000 DKP when there is revenue: burn it 25%, 50% reward players, 25% airdrop for new users
Or this 1000,000 DKP will be distributed periodically once a month in the reserve supply
I think it is necessary to set aside 20% of the DKP supply to pay monthly rewards to players within 3-5 years. This will ensure the long-term sustainable development of the project with ICP. This is my personal opinion, thanks

We sure need to look into this critically, before any decisions are made, I wouldn’t want a case where the unexpected happens, you guys can study similar models you want to implement from other projects and see if it’s worth embarking on.

My one cent.

@borovan @Thyassa as an alternative (not sure if anyone mentioned this already), what about a new in-game token (similar to what HotOrNot does with COYN) - indeed DKP - keeping SNS1 as is - as a governance token?

You could even tight those two by setting (permanent) SNS1/DKP exchange rate (1 SNS1 = 1000000000000 DKP…?) which would ensure the relation and value - just not sure how complicated would be to guarantee this (obviously the number of existing SNS1 and DKP would need to stay in sync).

is there another way to reward staking and voting? Maybe with a % of item sales? Initially I was in the camp of ‘inflation is the devil’ but I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater…

(Investor/holder perspective)

Here’s a deflationary proposal that also introduces the concept of a secondary token:

Introduce a unique in-game currency distinct from DKP. In-game currency should be inflationary. Allow a direct swap between this currency and DKP, similar to the IC cycles<->ICP model (and let this be the only possible swap). The market will then determine the relative value between the in-game currency and DKP. Every time a swap occurs, impose a fee. Part of this fee could be burned to create a deflationary effect, and the remaining portion allocated for game development. This introduces a deflationary dynamic to the in-game currency. The burned fees could also go into a wallet that burns it all when a certain balance is reached, to create hype.

Couple this with transaction fees as another deflationary measure, and rewards for holders as the inflationary counterbalance in a separate/second DKP SNS, a balance could be created in the total DKP supply as the game progresses. Part of the holders SNS-rewards could also go to development, depending how big the DKP fund is excluding the staked DKP in the main SNS.

If structured thoughtfully – determining appropriate rates for swap fees, transaction fees, and SNS rewards – DKP inflation could be moderated over time, without sacrificing the funding for its development.

As a holder I wouldn’t mind a bit of inflation in the beginning, as long as I can ride the inflation with my SNS rewards.

Little addendum with things I assumed:

  • That its possible to split the SNS

  • That splitting the SNS would mean a real split, where DKP is used in both the SNSs. The newly made SNS would be used for ingame stuff, and its scope could be set programmatically by the main-SNS where borovan holds all the voting power.

  • As inflation of DKP would occur due to SNS rewards, it would be possible for a new 51% attack in the main SNS to happen. Although its against the moral of the SNS, the main SNS could be closed, not allowing new members. Or you could say that its a responsibility for the DKP team to always have 50%+.

  • That its possible to create an in-game token that is only allowed to be swapped with 1 DKP pool. Does not have to be ICRC1, can be a new type. A new type shouldnt create problems as the IGC should then only be used in game. (Technically I can imagine this is a hard one)

I am in favor of a new in-game currency, as IGCs should be inflationary for a healthy game economy (this does not necessarily hold for DKP). Also, you dont want DKP to be inflated when an in-game exploit happens (you never know). However, I wouldnt say im in favor of creating a new SNS with the in-game currency, as this could completely undermine DKP.

Against new in-game currency. One token for all

1 Like

There was already an air drop for sns-1 post launch we don’t need another.

Right now the sns-1/dkp ledger canister has 1-trillion token-quantums (minus the burned transfer fees). The decimal places are just for aesthetics and have no relevance in the canister contract code. If the goal is to move the decimal point for easy viewing, you can just change the ‘decimals’ variable to 0 without minting any new tokens.