On tokenomic discussions

I have noticed that community members are cropping up with tokenomic discussions, consider the below where I outline what my personal motivations are, what I consider important for the DAO, and so on.

My personal motivations

My primary reasons for doing this are helping people achieve privacy, to challenge myself, to improve my skills and to also show the “world” that this protocol is absolutely out of control of the original contributors of this organization, because a world where people are considered criminals for only wanting to be left alone is an unacceptable fucking nightmare.

So, from my personal perspective as someone who came to help out the currently most effective privacy solution on Ethereum, I personally want to absolutely minimize having to think, code, or argue about tokenomics, for a specific reason.

I have informed people here about several tokenomic concerned considerations, but please absolutely know that my focuses will lie on infrastructure and cryptography as much as possible. My original intention was to write the SDK and while writing it to learn about ZK cryptography and also handle that one task of documenting the circuits, because it would help me learn me more, as mentioned.

I still have that goal, but considering the former contributor left, obviously one of the most important points also becomes helping the DAO which enables communication with the core protocol as much as possible. So you can keep this in mind while I continue with the next topic such that you know what my biases are.

On tokenomic discussions in general

Tokenomic discussions and mechanism implementations are currently low priority in comparison to general infrastructure work. Infrastructure, resilience and further radical decentralization should be the target goal of this DAO, without any further doubts for all I am concerned.

Most importantly because, if this goal is not achieved, the token will be worth 0, because as Gavin Wood himself claimed, DAOs will have to totally decentralize, to the point where they won’t exist in the current state.

So a burn mechanism was mentioned recently, is this important currently? My answer is absolutely no, the only thing which should be done is to restore anything which was compromised by the exploit.

The way that you should think of the token in our case is as a utility which should, as one possibility, encourage contributors to come forward which must build infrastructure to further secure the protocol. And securing the protocol can mean providing infrastructure with a reputation and as much as possible eliminate any dependence on infrastructure.

As such, when actually thinking about some issue, from my perspective it is of great importance to check whether your motivations are in line with former, there obviously isn’t a problem if there isn’t, but I am putting this out for YOU to be informed.


The rise and fall of Torn has nothing to do with the development of the project. Of course I support the development of the project, but at the same time I also saw that the price of Torn fell from 400 to 4, and most of the early token holders left the market with heavy losses. The original team sold Torn quickly after being sanctioned, and then sold Torn again after being attacked, which greatly damaged the confidence of token holders. As one of the holders, what I want is simple. First, the currency price no longer falls. Second, project bugs are reduced, such as cheating relayers and Ddos. Third, happy to see the birth of Tornado v3, if possible.
The destruction I am referring to is not the destruction of Torn in Dao, but the destruction of 0.3% of the income of each mixed currency. This fee was originally scheduled to be included in governance rewards.

Was your reply intended for dearjohn or me?

edit: Reading the other thread seems for him. Bump.

dear john. Your argument is too focused on the rise of the token price, and you are not interested in other factors such as the expansion of the token ecosystem

I think this statement is not correct at all
Your statement only correct when you can completely ignore governance to devolop the project.

Token price is a main factor to attract and sustain holders
Take care of the price shall be part of the development instead of ignore it, especially right now.

I just thinking on a extreme case that, let say the token price right now is dropping extremely.
Holders will then sell their token, and leave the governance.
Is it possible to have only few people, even no one in there, the project can still keep move forward? A high probability that we won’t be here and discuss all such thing.

That’s why i think that tokenomic should be a main part of development. This not about money, benefit or what, it is a main factor to keep people here and take care of the project. It’s provide a reason for holders to care the project, no matter its not suit with your reason, or the final goal is didnt match with project. At least you have somebody together to figure out something could benefit the project.

Of coz as an engineer myself, i completely understand that what an engineer mindset may think that a lot of fundamental or infrastructure could be a lot more important. I agree with that. But still, tokenomic are also important.

1 Like

I did not say it does not factor into, see:

The way that you should think of the token in our case is as a utility which should, as one possibility, encourage contributors to come forward which must build infrastructure to further secure the protocol. And securing the protocol can mean providing infrastructure with a reputation and as much as possible eliminate any dependence on infrastructure.

I said most importantly that it is low priority right now, and I’ve also said what my personal goals are. I suggest you guys then to arrive at some consensus, maybe make a poll in another thread, because then if we know what the community really agrees on we can plan an upgrade, if necessary.

Please initiate a proposal directly

Ok so after talking a lot, let me cut this short and simple, what burns practically do is the following:

Burns makes it such that lockers don’t get as much TORN as relayers bought from the market, so there is a price increase in TORN. This means, TORN token holders are rewarded for only holding the token, at the expense of Governance lockers.

So there is an increasing pricefloor, but the thing is, that this is the same as getting TORN revenue.

TORN locker revenue = TORN revenue + price increase through burned revenue (which does not compensate lost revenue)

TORN holder revenue = price increase through burned revenue

So basically, all you’re doing is redistributing revenue to TORN token holders. So how does this actually increase security? The revenue would have anyways landed directly in the hands of people, and specifically people that have locked in Governance, but now, it’s also being redistributed.

So, what the actual bet seems to be, is that through burns, which entice people to buy, the TORN price increase will be larger than the revenue Governance lockers would make otherwise.

Note that, without burning, there is an incentive to acquire more TORN, and that is to be able to gain access to revenue, because you could imagine, if revenue becomes high, then obviously people want revenue, so as much as I see, this is just shuffling tokens around.

CHAT LINK: Chat #General

1 Like

After careful consideration, I have decided that this is not the best time to implement the destruction plan and that it should wait until the team has sold out of tokens. Therefore, it is recommended to maintain the dividend plan

That’s right! The original team created huge selling pressure