Cross-posting my thoughts to the forum.
Firstly, I agree that it’s necessary to revert the emission rate from 0.05 to 0.0125 as originally planned and communicated (ref: zon’s tweet confirms that 0.05 was set as the parameter accidentally and docs confirm that too).
But the change should’ve been well-communicated to the community at the least a week prior and the onchain proposal should ONLY be submitted after the proposal has had at least a day to collect feedback on the forum.
If the emission rate was reduced gradually across the next 2-4 VIP stages, it would be much better received by the community as it gives LPs enough time to analyse and decide their strategy WHILE it also gives the Initia team enough time to observe how changing the emissions affects user behavior.
| Upgrade | Release Rate |
|---|---|
| Upgrade 1 | 0.0375 |
| Upgrade 2 | 0.025 |
| Upgrade 3 | 0.0125 |
A little note on why less emissions is net-positive before I go:
- Less yearly emissions, longer emission schedule. Long-term health of the economy is more important.
- Less emissions to EL means less people are inclined to zap lock their esINIT. And they can now slowly vest their allocation to further use INIT in the Interwoven Economy.
- Less emissions means less INIT on the market, better for the tokenomics of INIT and better for the LPs as well because the INIT-USDC LP is made up of 80% INIT.
Last thing to the community—please engage constructively in governance, it can make more of a difference than you’d think.
EDIT: It’s important to mention that this proposal shows the importance of a proper governance framework in place—proposal scope, procedure, etc. If the proper framework was in place, the staking emissions adjustment would & should not have been passed with the chain software upgrade. Putting the two together has led to the upgrade facing delays because of an action that isn’t even related to or blocked by the upgrade.