before the hacking, 700 thousand torn lay in betting, burning kills the meaning of holding the token, they will all go to the market and no one will buy it
Think about it again, is your logic correct? The current economic model is the simplest economic model, and it cannot even be called an economic model. It is not ingenious, but simple. If the market value reaches the normal range, whether it is DEX or CEX, it will open deposit business for TORN. Safer higher rates, you know what I mean? Change has cascading effects and I think the good outweighs the bad
If you call the current economic model ingenious, then I have nothing to say, I hope you will get more exposure to other projects and learn more
I have the same opinion as you just said, but only in a hour ago.
Before I read the whole post and deeply study the tokenomic,
I think the burning mechanic would break the whole system, as same as your opinion.
But then I draw the whole picture on a paper and review the logic behind,
I found that the burning concept can really improve the tokenomic,
which is not a concept that just for somebody to earn money here, but helping the tokenomic.
If you also did the same thing as mine, you will get the same conclusion as mine,
the reply from dearjohn is quite detail and clear. you should detail read that and think about it.
In my opinion right now, I will agree the burning mechanism. based on my logic as below:
-
Right now the 0.3% from relayer to staker, can be regarded as market supply, cuz they finally will sell it to profit, and the 0.3% loss from relayer can be regarded as market demand, cuz they finally will buy it for permanent stake. It means that supply and demand in this situation is completely balance, no matter how many people is using on it, the token price wont change at all.
The only income increase would be based on usage amount. -
Right now the only factor can increase token price, is staking demand.
once demand of stake is increased, people willing to stake, the supply will then reduce, and demand increase. This is the only factor that could affect the token price. -
However, after implement the burning concept, although staker income will be reduced, the token supply will also reduced, but demand of token is same as before. it cause a continues unbalance on supply and demand, and help the token price going up continuously.
once the token price going upward, let say it raised to $2000, same as eth price, then the 0.3% fee from 100 eth would become 0.3 torn, let say the burning system is 100% fee burning, which will only burn 0.3 torn in this situation.
Over time, token price will going up because of unbalance of supply and demand, and token burning amount will reduce continuously. That is healthy to the tokenomic in my opinion.
If you still think that this will broke the system, you should convince us “how” it broke…
Your understanding is correct. I also hope that holders of opposing opinions will express their reasons and logic for discussion.
what? you want to deprive the token of the stake function. It doesn’t have inflation. Do you want prices to go up? as a result, you will see torn for sale of all torn stakers
1 Like
are you so sure that the relayers will support the course? and you looked at the volume of demand from the side of the relayers. this can be viewed in etherscan, stake to relay. Every two days 2000 torn, approximately. ha-ha
1 Like
100% Directly destroy is not a good idea
Because people wont join governance anymore cuz it has no benefit, no matter involve or not.
I think 50/50 is a great point to sustain token price and reward who has involved governance at the same time. Cuz both are same important for the project improvement.
what are the reasons that the torn price has dropped? is it in its quantity? this will not affect the price in any way, unless down) as there is no demand. Leave even 1 million torn, if there is no demand, it will not grow by itself. Torn has no inflation, and its only 10 million.
why is everyone so fixed on burning? there are other things which we can do, algorithmic market operations and protocol owned liquidity, something like this is exactly what gozzy proposed (but didnt put together with the staking mechanic), and t-hax also mentioned that other things can be done other than just burning
an upgrade could be made which redirects tokens towards reinforcing liquidity on exchanges.
this way there would be a direct market impact instead of only an indirect one, for which we can only hope to influence the market
1 Like
I can figure out that the concept from gozzy is helping the liquidity, but it’s complicated for me that how it influences on token supply and demand.
And also, is that any conflict on both proposal? If both are benefit for project, why not go for both?
Besides, if any other better idea could be done rather than just burn, i will appreciate it if people could try to explain whos idea.
1 Like
тот кто сделал эту тему, думает, что стейкеры рушат цену torn. Но это не так, достаточно понаблюдать в etherscan, но он прежде чем делать тему, даже в этом не убедился и слепой. Объемы продаж не вилики и не могут повлиять на цену. Сжигание никак не поможет цене, это глупо, нет спроса. Дети не понимающие в экономике и стоит ли на вас тратить время, если вы не хотите понимать реальных проблем токена? детский сад какой то.
1 Like
другой заявляет, что спрос поддержат релееры? смотрим в etherscan и смотрим объемы релейщиков, они ничтожны. Очевидно же, что детсад развели, нужна верификация по возрасту)
I think everyone’s ultimate goal is to attract more attention to the project. Nowadays, many people are selling tokens because they feel that the project has been abandoned and will soon die. We need to make changes. I think the token destruction mechanism can be considered, but we should make the community more legitimate so that investors and developers can easily find us and join us
1 Like
Talking in russian wont let u become more mature. It’s meaningless to talk about people age or what here. What u point out that such as fee from relayer can be neglected are just like talking shit. What u neglected here is the only revenue that pushing the whole project and attracting staker right now. U are the one that u said that who didnt recognize what going on.
I think the point hex pointed out are all correct. This is just another tricky game to distribute the same revenue. I think its enough discussion to make decision cuz the information is quite enugh to figure out the picture.
привлекает стейкеров говорите? после сжигания наград, он их больше не будет привлекать. Ваша модель сжигания ничего гениального не несет, но вы видимо считаете себя гением в экономике. Придумайте, что нибудь другое, для повышения спроса токена. Навряд ли, что все узнают, о сжигании побегут его скупать. Причина падение torn не в его количестве. Отсутствие спроса, санкции на протокол, недавний взлом. Еще раз повторю, torn не имеет инфляции. Для примера, сожгите часть своих денег из кармана, оставшаяся часть дороже не станет, так как нет спроса. Можете в этом убедиться отправив свои torn на адрес 0x0000000000000, начните эксперимент прямо сейчас)
и мой лайфхак для вас, можете выйти из torn и уйти к тем токенам, которые сжигают свои монеты, ведь по вашей логике сжигание всегда приводит к росту цены, вы станете богаче
Лучше в общих дискуссионных темах на английском писать. Однако в целом с посылом я согласен - нет смысла путём сжигания уменьшать награды стейкерам, если бы было возможно сжигать процент из средств тех, кто выводит без релееров - тогда да, это имело бы смысл.
Sorry, maybe you didn’t get it. Suppose I have 100,000 Torn reward income, I put it into the black hole, and the currency price will not change. But if I hit it on the market, I can knock off a few percent. In the long run, the impact is obvious.
At the same time, I also believe that it is possible not to change the combustion mechanism at present, but to wait for the team to sell off next year before changing the combustion mechanism
No, the supply increases by 1.75% every month and with current volume it does not make sense to put a burn function at this stage, if we do so then people will stop staking and voting and sell, the exact thing I don’t think is a good idea