Proposal to Reduce Massa Blockchain Yearly Inflation to 2.5% ( Block reward 0.4)

[adm]

Hey damir,

Thanks for explanation.

[el_chineo]

Hey glad you are back with your reply.

@Bosamer

That claim ignores basic economic logic. High inflation destroys long-term holder confidence. Price is not driven only by immediate sell pressure, it is also driven by expectations.

You’re invoking “basic economic logic” without any reference to actual data or chain-specific modeling. Which part of this logic are you basing your statement on? Behavioral economics? Game theory? Token velocity theory? Because right now it sounds more like a truism than a substantiated point.

I already explained that even if 69% of all staking rewards were dumped daily, the resulting pressure would be negligible compared to token unlocks on the supply side, which no one here seems willing to discuss.

@Bosamer

markets are psychological. Continuous daily selling from rewards gradually erodes price and pushes long-term holders away.

Again, this is just a story, even though an intuitive one, sure, but still a story. You want to convince people to change the fundamental economic model of a chain, so you have to back it up with numbers.

@Bosamer

With respect, this is a weak argument. Massa has very limited on-chain data, almost no DeFi, and no complex behavioral metrics to study yet. So what exactly is there to analyze?

This is exactly why it’s too early to make major economic changes. If the data infrastructure isn’t there yet, then we should focus on building it first. Slash rewards later, once you actually understand where value is coming from and where not. Not before.

@Bosamer

Ironically, I am not part of the team, and I have nothing to gain. I do not hold any MAS. I simply proposed what I believe is economically sound, based on experience and precedent.

You are not relevant to my comment as I was addressing team’s voting decision and its poor justification for voting yes on this proposal.

@Bosamer

This is a contradiction. You argue that it both lacked support and passed too easily. Which is it? In fact, the proposal did receive community engagement and discussion, this is what decentralized governance is about.

There is no contradiction, it passed too easily because of the 31% of the voting power that Labs/Foundation hold. If they hadn’t voted, this wouldn’t pass. Which is exactly what I mean by

@el_chineo

This is a textbook example of centralized control masquerading as community consensus.

@Bosamer

FYI : I have also made a similar proposal before. In 2021, I submitted a proposal to Kadena to revise its emission model. … This real-world example shows how properly tuned tokenomics can directly impact market confidence and long-term value.

I’m actually glad you brought up Kadena, I was both a miner and a bonder in that ecosystem, so I’m very familiar with what happened. There’s no need to misrepresent history here. It seems you may be unclear about the nature of the proposal you reference. The tokenomics update in Kadena primarily reduced platform emissions, the equivalent of token unlocks in MAS, while mining emissions remained untouched. In contrast, the current MAS proposal targets staking rewards directly. These are not the same thing, and drawing a parallel between them is misleading at best.

@Bosamer

It was adopted, and shortly afterward, Kadena’s price surged from $0.30 to $28.

And to address this bomber argument, KDA rallied because of the 2021 altcoin bull run and intense speculative momentum (including CEX listings, Kadenians, amazing tech team and even better marketing team). If you’re trying to claim the price increase from $0.30 to $28 was due to a tokenomics proposal, that is hilarious, but hey some people believe the earth is flat.