Secret Network - Discussion for Tokenomics Proposal

TL: DR, what are your proposals?

After today’s call, which saw a presentation on tokenomics, I have drafted a proposal describing the direction I think Secret Network should take to support future growth sustainably. At a high level, this would involve:

  • A four-year inflation plan that reduces inflation from 9.0% to 6.0%
  • A “tax” distributed directly to validators equal (or up to) a fixed dollar value
  • “Switching off” the Community Pool tax by decreasing the parameter to 0.0% tax
  • Sending $75k from the Community Pool to a Liquidity Fund alongside a 1.5% tax
  • Sending the remainder from the Community Pool to Secret Network Foundation (with SCRT Labs matching the value in USD)

The overall impact on staker APR from these proposals will be as follows (assuming a 50% bonding ratio):

  • Staker APR remains flat in the first year with a nominal change in total taxes from 2.0% to 2.3%
  • Reduction in APR from 18.0% to 11.7% in Year 4 before accounting for the impact of an SNF tax.

I am not seeking to rush this proposal through but would like to open the conversation for as long as we can.

Inflation and staking APR adjustments:

Proof-of-Stake blockchains use inflation to primarily incentivise validators but also delegators. This helps validators offset their operating costs and attracts delegators to stake their tokens to secure the Network. I have suggested several changes that will impact inflation and APR to stakers.

Reduction in inflation:

The Secret Network community passed a proposal to reduce inflation from 15% to 9% per year in November 2023. This is a significant reduction and it is likely the community would be wary to enact any further large decreases in inflation. It is important to note that even with this sizeable reduction in inflation, the bonding ratio has remained above 50%. The “recommended” bonding ratio of 67% has never had any significant rationale for its application.

I propose a four-year plan that sees inflation reduce from 9% per year to 6% per year. As a point of reference, the current leading proof-of-stake chains by market cap including BNB Chain, Solana and NEAR Protocol all target inflation rates between 5% and 7%.

I would also remove any reference to bonding ratio when calculating inflation (i.e., the situation where sustained periods of high bonding ratios would lead to natural decreases in inflation).

The above chart shows the difference in total supply over the four years under the suggested inflationary model. Inflation over the four years decreases from 9.00% to 7.00% to 6.33% and finally to 6.00% (Desmos | Graphing Calculator).

Direct emissions to validators:

Drawing inspiration from Nois Network, I suggest that a portion of inflation is emitted directly to validators to support continued operation and maintenance. This will have positive ramifications for the Network including:

  • The ability to further reduce inflation while maintaining validator sustainability; and
  • The ability for validators to reduce commission fees to support price competition.

Validators that are loss-making long-term may exit the active set. While this is natural, we should seek to retain a threshold number of validators to prevent the concentration of voting power in a small number of validators. Personally, we should look to ensure that the top 60 validators are well-positioned to make a profit, and thus ensure long-term retention.

I propose an annual stipend of $1,000 is distributed to validators through this mechanism. At present, the current 60th-ranked validator, Secret University, is estimated to earn $1,662 at current prices and commission rates per year.

To avoid large complexity, a monthly adjustment proposal be passed in line with the monthly price change. This means when the price of $SCRT increases, the percentage of inflation directed to this tax decreases.

To protect stakers, a “floor price” should be used for $SCRT for these calculations. If the price of $SCRT is below this floor price, the floor price is used. This will reduce the dollar value of the payout to validators but will ensure that delegators are not overly diluted and treated equitably.

I suggest a floor price of $0.35 for this calculation. At the current price of $0.40, this would be equal to a tax rate of 0.75%. At the floor price, this would increase to 0.50%. As a reference point, at $1.00, the necessary tax rate would be 0.30%.

Liquidity fund:

As people would have seen in the earlier Secret 2.0 forum post from late 2022, there was a discussion around the creation of various structures to help support the Growth of the Network. I maintain this position and believe that it would be appropriate to include it in this proposal to support the application layer.

I propose the Community Pool makes a one-off $75k contribution to bootstrap this fund alongside a 1.50% tax for the four years. It is important to note that while the fund exists to grow the application layer, it is not a trading firm and therefore should not take excessive price risk relative to $SCRT.

I am not making any recommendations for who should sit on the DAO managing the liquidity fund, nor do I seek to sit on the DAO myself. However, I would strongly suggest that we use DAO DAO and use its veto feature which would allow Secret Network’s L1 to pass an emergency proposal (1 day) to veto a spend being proposed by the council. In the interest of effectiveness, this should be used as a “ragequit” function. If a proposal is vetoed, the council should immediately take steps to wind up its affairs and return all assets to the Community Pool.

I do not think this should be used to disseminate incentives to individual protocols, but rather deploy liquidity. Protocols will likely desire incentives early in their lifecycle and it will create significant amount of work to be comfortable with a product, its viability and safety (i.e., smart contract risk).

Secret Network Foundation:

The Secret Network Foundation will likely need resourcing to support future efforts through a tax. For this reason, I have sought to keep taxes low and use the Community Pool which has historically been used sub-optimally.

I suggest that the remainder of the funds in the Community Pool (over that referenced in the liquidity fund section) be distributed to Secret Network Foundation to support its operations. Based on the current value of the Community Pool, this distribution would be c.$250k.

It is important to note that if a tax is implemented for Secret Network Foundation in the future, funds would be received slowly over time and therefore may create cash flow issues/timing issues for Secret Network Foundation. It is for this purpose that I have suggested this one-time distribution.

Moreover, it is important to note that $SCRT is a relatively illiquid asset at present and the vast majority of Secret Network Foundation’s expenses are denominated in $USD. My recommendation would be that SCRT Labs, as a well-resourced entity driving the growth of Secret Network forward, would support this effort and match the community’s contribution in $USD.

This would provide a great platform for the Foundation. It would also prevent large supply-side pressure on $SCRT compared to if the Foundation was required to fund costs through $SCRT only (which would also be more costly).

For the purpose of clarity, an on-chain proposal cannot bind SCRT Labs to complete a specific action. However, it will be clear to see if this term can be included in a final proposal during the discussion period.

Community Pool:

After these actions have been taken, the Community Pool tax parameter will be reduced to 0.0%. It will continue to exist to be able to receive assets from the liquidity fund if necessary.

The Community Pool has been found to be quite sub-optimal in its resource deployments. With growing efforts from SCRT Labs to issue grants to projects and the continued effort of Secret Network Foundation, it would make sense to transition away from the Community Pool for operational spends and place some trust in the effectiveness of the aforementioned entities.

With the funds that are distributed from the Community Pool to Secret Network Foundation, it is likely that the Foundation will also need to take responsibility for continuing long-term initiatives such as the Testnet Committee and the Support Committee. Relative to the distribution made to it, these spends will be quite immaterial but should be factored into future budgets or requests made by the Foundation.

Distribution of inflation:

The above chart shows the stakeholders that receive inflationary emissions in each of the four years. As can be seen, the total taxes (pre-Secret Network Foundation tax) are especially minimal. As noted above, this is done intentionally to provide room for a Secret Network Foundation tax which is likely an exercise that is being worked on separately.

As can be seen in the above chart, stakers would retain a healthy amount of real yield by staking (through redistribution of inflation from non-stakers to stakers). It is important to note that we are not seeking to compete on real yield with traditional finance products. Any attempt to compete on income will likely have negative impacts on capital gains.

For reference, the bonded ratio at 15.0% and 9.0% inflation was 60.0% and 50.0% for long periods of time. We can assume that the bonded ratio will not increase subsequent to any future inflationary reductions. This means that real yield to stakers will initially equal 8.6% and reduce to 5.7% over the four years.

To provide some additional guidance to the community on “room” for tax, the below table shows the impact on real yield once some hypothetical SNF tax rates are overlaid. Real yield has been calculated as staking APR less inflation.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
0% Tax 8.6% 6.7% 6.0% 5.7%
5% Tax 7.7% 6.0% 5.4% 5.1%
10% Tax 6.8% 5.3% 4.8% 4.5%
15% Tax 5.9% 4.6% 4.1% 3.9%
20% Tax 5.0% 3.9% 3.5% 3.3%

Minimum commission:

This conversation has surfaced multiple times within the immediate community as well as the wider Cosmos community. While it has passed on many chains, it is important to note that the goals for the commission have generally been surrounding revenue and not stake decentralisation.

Consequently, my suggestions concerning inflation adjustments seem to resolve that better than a minimum commission could. By providing a base income to validators, validators can more easily reduce their commission percentage and therefore be able to compete on price more effectively than they previously could.

The community is also free to read an older post of mine from September 2022 where I talk about a minimum commission floor not being a viable solution to solving stake decentralisation.

Closing remarks:

I have not elaborated on the Skip Block SDK within this proposal, but I think it is clear from a rough consensus that the community would like to see this implemented. This would be ratified in the future through an on-chain governance proposal (likely during an upgrade). Therefore, I have not opined on this but will re-iterate that I am in support of implementing the Skip Block SDK.

My overall direction for inflation would be very similar to NEAR Protocol which sees a fixed level of inflation each year (which for Secret Network may be keeping it at 6% after Year 4) and burning all transaction fees. This would mean that at higher levels of adoption, net inflation would decrease.

Several questions need to be answered to understand the viability of this proposal:

  • Would SCRT Labs be willing to contribute in line with the Community Pool’s contribution to Secret Network Foundation?
  • Is the Secret Network Foundation able to accept one-off contributions from these entities?
  • Is SCRT Labs comfortable with the dev work necessary to facilitate this proposal (namely the validator splitting that Nois Network uses and reaching

There are also other questions such as the operational readiness and confidence that the community has in Secret Network Foundation. These would need to be raised and resolved before any proposal.

I will try to keep myself available to answer any questions you may have on this proposal.

I will not look to impede this proposal by submitting it as a spend proposal. However, should the community pass this proposal (or a similar variation), I will submit a spend proposal of $3,000 thereafter.

If any of the well-funded entities on the Network would wish to speak to me on this matter, please do get in touch.


For reference, here’s the report that was presented today:

these are my demands-

  1. variable inflation rate targeting 2/3 staking ratio.
  2. 50% tax on inflation going towards an expense splitter contract.
  3. expense percentage split changes DO NOT require a governance vote, instead consensus is achieved by averaging preferred split by voting weight.
  4. adding or removing options from expense splitter contract requires a governance vote.

Thanks for posting! There are a lot of merits to the proposal as made by @orageux101 and interesting insights in the Tokenomics Review, and I hope to see them discussed in more detail here.

I will add a couple comments I made during the presentation of the tokenomics analysis on Discord:

First, as we seek to build community consensus, it is unclear if there is a primary intended target metric of any new tokenomics - price higher? market cap higher? more equitable distribution of SCRT? long term stability for the network? All of these metrics are interrelated in a complex system. Price growth (or at least, value growth) has always been the engine of progress for every blockchain ecosystem that relies on contributions from self-sustaining actors in addition to new entrants. Number up makes everything work. However, price is not something that can be targeted directly - it simply results from the short and long term imbalance of supply and demand.

Thinking about what it would take to actually dent this imbalance, I proposed a fun thought experiment that is worth extending to absurdity:

What would happen if inflation were to be 50% for 3 months before falling to 6%?

More absurdly,

What would happen if inflation were to be 10,000% for 3 days before falling to 6%?

What would be the impact on the following actors?

  1. Labs
  2. SNF
  3. stakers
  4. validators
  5. binance holders
  6. marketmakers
  7. DeFi LPs

It’s more than an interesting side conversation. If we don’t have an understanding of how dramatic tokenomic policy changes would impact incentives and actions, then I don’t see how we can project the impact from far less dramatic, more incremental policy changes.

My concern from following the early conversation that we’re not considering actions and changes large enough to change the trajectory of the network. In Web3, you’re either growing dramatically or you’re already dead. There are obviously reasons to make positive incremental changes that can improve value capture or retention, but those changes happen on top of a foundation that relies above all else on explosive growth. Growth of usage, interest, value. [Stating the obvious: this is not unique to Web3. This is how every venture-backed product in Web2 works too.]

When token prices move 20% in a day, 1-5% changes over the course of an entire year are not going to drive different decisions or behaviors by any current or potential new stakeholders. If you want big results, you need big changes. Right now, at rank 450, SCRT needs to at least signal that it is capable of big changes for the market to change its mind about its potential trajectory. It’s not a mystery how the market currently prices SCRT’s future. Therefore, incentivizing new behavior is necessary.

There’s existing examples (not saying good or bad) of dramatic tokenomic change out there, for example, the FET token merger with OCEAN and Singularity, or large coordinated airdrops for L1 stakers that function as massive dividends. We know the impact of that type of change on supply and demand will be analyzable because we know it’s a change with a large enough effect to measure.

IMO as we evaluate tokenomics, the main question to answer is: what is the immediate opportunity or action for a new entrant? Why should someone show up and start caring about SCRT or acquiring it as a result of new tokenomics?

In addition, what is the immediate incentive for an existing stakeholder to stick around? Why should they double down on the ecosystem by bonding their coins or participating in LP? The least valuable user for the network is someone who keeps passive tokens on a CEX waiting to sell into pumps, and there’s currently 40M+ SCRT sitting idle on Binance.

I don’t believe there’s any type of application that could be built on Secret, beyond DeFi applications, where you’d see a first-order effect on demand for SCRT that outweighs speculative behavior (ppl buying bc they think number will go up). No amount of gas usage is that high. Similarly, fees, commissions, etc are all too small for there to be any measurable effect. This is true for any L1 or L2 outside the top 5 ranks.

All of this to say - I’d really like to see more people considering the impacts of dramatic changes, even absurd ones, and even if intuitively we don’t think they should ever occur. We should know why we do or don’t want these changes to happen. We should say what we believe would happen. Otherwise we’re shooting in the dark or shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic as we trick ourselves into thinking we’ve delayed the inevitable.

[plz note: There’s a difference between “doom and gloom” and being ruthlessly realistic about how the market perceives Secret and the necessity for dramatic change. I am very confident in leadership and optimistic about the technical direction of the network, but there is never any time to waste. So let’s discuss.]

1 Like

Slightly unrelated, so in a new section:

I’d love to see more detailed analysis, on a more regular basis, of SCRT token flows to and from CEXes - i.e. which wallets, how often, how much - as well as changes to bonded rates. Without that data it’s going to be hard to measure any impact of proposed or implemented tokenomic policies.

1 Like

Thanks for posting this thoughtful proposal! We will be looking into this and other ideas that were expressed on the call to jointly come up with suggestions for improved tokenomcis.

Thanks @orageux101 for posting this. I don’t think I agree with all the numbers, but that’s not really a show stopper for me saying I like the outline and would just want to see most of this incorporated into what Secret Labs is moving forward with the community. I also agree that the pool should be winded down. No group from the community has stepped up with a professional approach for initiatives around things like liquidity or growth in general. To tie this to the other discussion I’ll link my other thoughts SCRT Tokenomics Research Report - #2 by thenodefather

  1. It would be good to understand which numbers you disagree with and if you have any recommendations for what numbers you would use in place of them.

  2. What is your mind’s threshold for a “professional approach”? Many chains have Protocol-owned Liquidity mandates currently governed by L1 governance. Still, I believe this suffers highly from bias due to the large cross-contamination of validators in the Cosmos ecosystem. I would prefer that the actual DeFi builders on the chain (along with someone like SCRT Labs) would be best placed to manage this fairly.

And yes, I summarily agree with you that we cannot go back to a world of high taxes.

My suggestions have two principal goals, reduce the supply-side pressure of $SCRT and increase the demand-side pressure of $SCRT.

Reduced inflation (by introducing direct emissions to validators) will reduce supply-side pressure while the Liquidity Fund will be able to increase demand for $SCRT.

I accept that my idea falls vulnerable to the following premise:

“If you reduce inflation, people will unstake and dump.”

I summarily ignore this perspective because a tokenholder who thinks they’ll be better placed through income gains vs capital gains is largely misled, and this perspective likely applies to those with the largest balances who have already been creating significant supply-side pressure.

Your thought experiment is valuable, and at the end of the day - the “absurd” end of this proposal would be adjusting the percentage that goes to SNF vs Liquidity Fund. Favouring the liquidity fund may let you do stuff such as:

  • increasing deposits significantly in a money market to allow people to leverage stake $SCRT (this is clear direct increased demand for $SCRT); and
  • aggressively depositing in a perpetual protocol to increase OI capacity (this doesn’t appear immediately as directly increased demand for $SCRT but is necessary infrastructure for positioning for Secret Network).

All of this is to say, that we have to be realistic about the state of Secret Network. There are many entrenched holders and I don’t think it is realistic to believe that we can become a Top 50 blockchain overnight. This has to be a process that starts with becoming the most valuable smart contract L1 in Cosmos - a feat that isn’t difficult in itself.

The other opinion is that you would require large architectural changes to Secret Network such as becoming an L2 and trying to take advantage of other narratives, but this is a large gamble.

1 Like

Great question. Looking back, I see you actually say hypothetical numbers for part of this. As for the proposed inflation number to go down to, I don’t know that I disagree with it as much as I really want to see it paired with mechanisms that tie into revenue for the chain. It would be great if fees brought something to the table, a staking derivative was native that brought revenue, and sources like VRF brought revenue, it would be less great if we got to the end of the 4 years and no other sources of native revenue existed. So I think I pretty much just agree with it all, nothing stands out that seems bad, but perhaps you could throw in 10,000% inflation for a period of time to please he who shall not be named.

My main questions boil down to:

  1. what is going to make a large player buy
  2. what is going to make an entrenched player not sell

I don’t see anything in your or other tokenomic proposals targeted for 1). Generally demand in 1) comes from pure speculation - perhaps around a narrative trend, upcoming news or upgrades, corporate partnership, expected liquidity boosts from exchange listings - but it can also come from short-term yield opportunities either at L1 or application layer. This could be funded directly by inflation in the form of higher staking ROI or indirectly through a funded account that rewards on-chain LPs. What I’ve witnessed previously is that if sophisticated actors take all the yield (in SCRT) and the yield is not bonded/restricted, it’s more likely to be farmed and dumped than something more accessible, like staking ROI or single-sided liquidity (see: Secret Ethereum Bridge?). So that’s not positive for price action. Something to consider.

I do see thought towards 2), but that kind of retention IMO has more to do with communication / expectation setting around future priorities for network and ecosystem development. It also has a lot to do with expected selling schedules from early network stakeholders, core contributors, validators, etc. and how elastic these are.

The risk, of course, of any aggressive tokenomic policy is that it gets the attention of the “set-it-and-forget-it” crowd who were not otherwise contemplating immediate selling. But this is also the opportunity: moving “stuck” SCRT into the hands of more proactive stakeholders who want to focus on growth and increasing the productivity of their holdings.

The biggest risk IMO is installing a passive or weak tokenomic policy that does nothing for 1) and also convinces long-term stakeholders that there is no longer hope of an outsized outcome for the ecosystem. Given our current negative price momentum but positive narrative momentum, I’d rather see us land on something that we know carries substantial risk than try to to minimize volatlity.

That’s because I don’t believe that a new large player is going to buy a material amount of $SCRT purely based on narrative. You can do any gimmicky financial engineering, and it will likely be short-lasting and end up with a worse outcome.

Secret Network (if you include its predecessors) is coming up to 5 years old.

The only conviction I have, and is something that many are aware of, is making good DeFi on Secret Network where “our DeFi is great, privacy is an added benefit”. Make that work and you’ll get people using the Network and you’ll likely see upward impact from new projects wanting to launch on Secret, being able to raise on Secret, and succeeding on Secret.

That is what will get large players buying Secret. We spent so much time claiming “Supernova”, “hundreds of projects in a year” as a target, and the positive impact of that…

But we never executed and then think that there was no value in having a good shit launch.

L1 tokenomics isn’t going to bring large players in, and I’d be shocked if someone could give me a proper argument suggesting otherwise. L1 tokenomics exists to keep the Network alive for as long as possible in a sustainable manner such that its application layer can keep pushing it forward (ignoring initial post-launch hype).

That’s because I don’t believe that a new large player is going to buy a material amount of $SCRT purely based on narrative.

Is this because you don’t believe large capital in crypto buys anything based primarily on narrative, or are you describing something specific to the SCRT ecosystem?

I think narratives have value. However, let’s take DeCC as an example:

  • DeCC includes TEEs, MPC, zkPs and FHE. TEEs are undoubtedly the most boring of the bunch and the easiest to attack (in the social layer)
  • Secret Network’s VC population is already stunted and VCs help amplify narratives (newer chains in the DeCC space such as those with Salami may fare better)
  • My reference to “narrative” in my above post could do with a bit of clarity. Privacy (or whatever you want to call it, but you’d be wrong to not call it privacy) narrative pumping will pump all DeCC chains. Tokenomics engineering will not make your chain pump more than other DeCC chains. It doesn’t exist for that.

TEEs are also the most usable of the bunch, so it feels like your argument that we should attract 100s of dApps / integrations plays nicely with emphasizing the usability of Secret within the DeCC narrative.

I asked my question because I assure you large capital in crypto regularly buys things primarily based on narrative. See: any memecoin, AI coins, DePIN, etc.

“Make your chain pump more than other DeCC chains” is not the goal here - it’s not targetable (by tokenomics or otherwise) and it’s not particularly important to achieve in the short run. But if the narrative begins working and people re-evaluate the whole liquid DeCC sector, they will primarily look at:

  1. available liquidity (which one can they actually buy)
  2. social proof (which ones have some support/validity from people buyers trust)
  3. short term opportunities (who’s already announced announcements or providing interesting yield for L1 coin holders)

Trying to impress a bunch of presale discount hunters is pointless bc SCRT has been liquid for nearly 4 years - they can’t get what they want. People who deploy capital on exchanges are the target, and they aren’t as keen on dev-centric narratives as you might be assuming.

Comments topic topic:

  1. Validator stipend
  • I agree with this concept and think its a good match for secret. Especially if the set also decreases slightly to maybe ~60 validators.
  • I am missing the impact here that will improve decentralisation but we had this conversation many times and i am not sure the community will agree on any practice here
  • I would not anchor the stipend at a monthly usd amount but at a monthly SCRT amount. Validators are fine with some risk but added upside, they dont need usd based compensation but just a long term believe that at some point the upside will recoup their cost. I think its best if the community agrees to an inflation % split that would be specific for validators and simply adjust that value to the downside if SCRT price goes up far beyond current value.
  1. Liquidity fund:
  • Setting up a new fund sounds like a lot of tech debt/work for no real benefit, id advocate for just signalling that a % of the community pool is to be used for this and create a regular spend proposal that fills up the coffers of whatever subDao manages the liquidity.
  • i do agree that Secrets community pool should become more active in Defi though, especially when constellation chains also goes live and those tokens come to the community pool. Id advocate for a higher overall tax on stakers if a majority of those funds go to this liquidity fund
  1. SNF
  • I dont think we can clean the community pool at this moment in time, i cant support this part of the proposal. I do like the USD matching idea where community and SCRT labs contribute together but am not sure its reasonable to expect this from SCRT labs.
  1. community pool
  • Yes, community shouldnt do too many spend proposals especially not for technical projects - its not governable and has proven unsuccesful in the past.

Besides these comments i also made some comments during the past tokenomics call which i will list here. Overall they all are in line with me wanting the network to take more actions towards truly sustainable tokenomics. With CCL heating up and Blockspace on Secret being rather sparse and marketcap fairly low i think there is a real oppurtunity to start making atleast some network revenue that can start compensating stakers and validators over inflation. With this the intention shouldnt be to over-charge users for a product that isnt complete or awesome yet, but it is to get the tools in place to be able to do so when the time comes.

Some of the ideas are:

  1. Taking fees from SecretPath (now Alex, the relayer, basically pays it)
  2. Taking fees on IBC to some capacity if needed - if many SNIPS become successful then secret can charge for exporting tokens throughout the interchain - it also directs revenue from products like SilentSwap to the Secret L1
  3. Taking fees on SecretVRF itself on the chain level to compete with chainlink volumeMEV - Right now people could fork SecretPath/evmVRF and remove the fees, this should be combatted against on a network level long term.
  4. Adding MEV implementations through Skip-tenderming that Auction the block creation or certain block positions to MEV searchers. As secret is encrypted by default it can label the total value on a block to be made on MEV without revealing contents and also while prohibiting Sandwich attacks. Including such an MEV engine inside the network can be a longterm driver of revenue for stakers and validators like it has become on Osmosis, Solana and Ethereum.
  5. Skip Block SDK with wip1559 style gas markets - this will make it so CCL starts to be priced and demand for SCRT exists. it is important this is tied in with Osmosis style fee abstraction so that CCL can be priced in any asset Shade supports. People will be able to build metamask or even walletless apps on Secret that charge the user only in USDC - this should be a tokenomics goal as this USDC becomes direct market buying pressure on the SCRT shade pool. The block sdk also should keep separate lanes for IBC messages so to prevent issues where CW based txs overflow other users on the network
  6. Inflation intended for Defi incentives Berachain or Terra Alliance style Or even to a community LP fund - this is in line with what orageux mentioned but basically means the community can decide to send part of the SCRT inflation to smart contracts like the SCRT/USDC liquidity pool on shade. This type of direct impact on on-chain defi activity would be an exciting mechanism for community members and a helpful tool to onboard more dApps. Alliance is very easy to implement (its a segregated module) and i would highly advocate for it (definitely call it something else though).

Thats the first comments on the proposal - now its time to read the other 12 replies.

Good old fashion count down clock would attract some attention. There’s that move.

I am very confident gambling will push SCRT into the public consciousness.

If there is anything gambling stuff happening on SN then maybe boast about that more.

Thank you @orageux101 for getting this discussion going and sticking your neck out with a well put together proposal. The conversation in this thread has given me a lot of insight to our community and how there are more avenues to exhaust in the realm of SCRT’s tokenomics. Thank you! Let’s keep this discourse going.

Would it be helpful to host another call around your proposal and the most recent conversation around it? I’d love to keep this momentum going. Lmk and I’ll help organize a discord event.