Threshold
You are most welcome! I can understand your frustration very well.
By the way, I became aware of your proposal through X (Twitter). It was briefly addressed in a video post, either on Polkadot or Kusama. The worst thing was the arrogance and double standards of the people there.
The moderator and a few others were in favor of letting Kusama blithely continue to be inflationary in order to and I quote “fund their innovations”, and apparently have no problem inflicting a 10% inflation rate on their users, but they do have a problem with burns and a voting tax of one per mille being introduced... One woman there even called your proposal stupid. Is this any way to treat users who want to contribute something constructive? Where is your comment here?
The problem is also that they place far too much emphasis on who is proposing something. This is because they very probably come from authoritarian countries that don't have a clue about Western democratic systems in which every citizen can get involved and it's about concrete content and not about rank and name.
And one more thing: the moderator sneeringly remarked that this was just a WFC. Dear Mr., the WFC, which effectively set the treasury burn to 0, was finally lovingly implemented, wasn't it?
The sad truth is that they have an irrational fear of losing their funding and salaries. It is not concern for the project and its users, but pure selfishness. Dear Kusama team, if you are reading this, please hire an economist, or preferably two. It can only get better! And in principle it would be really easy: Please stop pretending to be superior to market mechanisms, because we live in a world that is dictated by them.
The current inflationary course will certainly not lead to a place where Kusama will flourish. Please, take a look at the chart! That, my dears, is unfortunately the sad reflection of your strategy so far. We need a better one! We need this one! Aye!
While we understand some of the motivations of this referendum, there are several points that lead to our NAY vote:
My general voting policy is to aye pretty much everything, first I'm glad you took the time to put together something that is not nonsensical. I'm not sure if any of the proposed changes is going to do anything, but the thing is nobody knows and we will never know if we don't try anything and just keep naying every attempt at changing the way things are.
Hi EfWt...RF1U !
In general I advocate for solving the root cause, not the symptoms, and seeing things the way I've been seeing them since I joined this community (back in '22), high inflation is not just fairly recent, but just another symptom. IMHO, the underlying problem Kusama as a network must address is lack of usage, and that is a systematic symptom across every network other than a few three (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Polygon). This is mainly because: a) the KSM was considered a shitcoin even become the inflation rate increase, and b) usage is driven by usability, and by that I don't mean porting to Eth, but building systems that let real-world people use web3 products and enjoy their benefits without the burden of acknowledging they're using Web3 products (I mean: opening a wallet, buying crypto, being constantly aware of that, etc.).
I understand the good intentions behind this proposal, but low inflation with zero demand has no impact whatsoever.
PolkaWorld votes NAY.
If Polkadot is aiming to reduce security costs, I believe Kusama can adopt a similar approach. Even if we choose a different path, we still need a more comprehensive plan for reducing inflation.
Read more feedback here.
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.
The Wish For Change track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received zero aye and four nay votes from ten available members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
Voters expressed several concerns regarding the proposal’s mechanisms to reduce inflation and increase KSM value. They argued that the small fee imposed on each vote would likely prove ineffective, and they questioned whether burning treasury funds or taxing treasury payouts would truly counteract market pressures. Some members noted that the persistent inflation issues required far deeper investigation before implementing further economic interventions. They contended that improvements in usage, attention, and overall sentiment were essential for KSM appreciation, rather than relying solely on technical fiscal measures. Their combined skepticism ultimately led to a rejection of the proposed changes.
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate
📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate
Edited
In principle, I agree with the proposal and am even prepared to make the decision deposit available, as I am aware that it is extremely difficult for people with good ideas who do not have thousands of dollars at their disposal to be able to contribute these ideas at all. Something that should be fundamentally changed in the future in order to be as flexible and innovative as possible.
But let's move on to my criticism of the proposal. I think it's good to reintroduce the treasury burns, but 5% per spending period is too much, as each such spending period only lasts just under a week. I would welcome it if you changed this percentage to 0.5%.