Space Summary
The Twitter Space The Namada Token Economics and Genesis Balances Proposal hosted by namada. The Namada Token Economics space delved into innovative ways to secure tokens across multiple chains through the introduction of shielding rewards and shielded cross-chain actions. The proposal focuses on incentivizing users to protect assets, enhancing token economics through shielding mechanisms, and implementing shielded asset hubs. By rewarding users for safeguarding assets and exploring cross-chain functionalities, the space aims to create a more secure and robust token ecosystem within the DeFi niche.
For more spaces, visit the DeFi page.
Questions
Q: What new features were proposed for token protection and rewards?
A: The space introduced shielding rewards and shielded cross-chain actions to incentivize asset protection.
Q: How does the proposal aim to enhance token economics?
A: By implementing shielding mechanisms and cross-chain functionality, the proposal seeks to improve token economics.
Q: Why is protecting assets across multiple chains important?
A: Protecting assets across multiple chains is crucial for ensuring security and incentivizing users to safeguard their tokens.
Q: What are the benefits of shielded asset hubs?
A: Shielded asset hubs reward users for protecting assets and contribute to a more secure token ecosystem.
Q: How does the proposal innovate token security measures?
A: The proposal explores innovative ways to secure tokens, including shielded cross-chain actions and incentivized protection measures.
Highlights
Time: 00:15:20
Introduction of Shielding Rewards The space introduced a new concept of rewarding users for shielding assets.
Time: 00:25:40
Enhancing Token Economics through Shielding Discussion on how shielding mechanisms can improve overall token economics.
Time: 00:35:55
Innovative Cross-Chain Security Measures Exploring innovative cross-chain actions to enhance token security across different chains.
Time: 00:45:10
Rewarding Multichain Protection Highlighting the importance of incentivizing users to protect assets across multiple chains.
Key Takeaways
- Introduction of shielding rewards and shielded cross-chain actions for tokens.
- Focus on multichain protection and incentivized security measures for assets.
- Enhancing token economics through shielding mechanisms and cross-chain functionalities.
- Implementation of shielded asset hubs to reward users for protecting assets.
- Exploration of innovative ways to secure and incentivize the use of tokens across different chains.
Behind the Mic
Discussion on Brent's Participation
Sadeena. Sadeena, Sadeena. Love the music. Just waiting to see if Brent is going to join us. I don't think he can join today. He was. He agreed to stay up very late to do some Nomada engineering backlog clearing. And as part of that contract, I agreed that he could sleep, so. All right, fair enough. What about Adrian? That one? I don't know. Let me check. I'll send a message. What's up? That was quick. Okay, great. Hey, let's get started. Okay, so we're gonna, like. We did do this once already. We're gonna pretend we didn't. So there's maybe some, if you listen to the first one, or at least you got the first half. We had some technical difficulties, so you might hear a lot of the same stuff and wondering if you're having deja vu. But rest assured, this has happened before and it's going to happen again.
Introduction to the Team
I'm here with Christopher goes and Adrian Brink, both co founders of Nemata Anoma Heliax and the Anoma foundation. Yeah, we've had a pretty busy last couple of weeks, and things are just getting busier. Excited that things are. We're moving very, I think, fairly quickly now toward Mainnet. Just. We've got some, you know, things to talk about around this proposal. This balances toml proposal. You know, I'm excited to do this space together and discuss some of the. This and some of the other updates. Maybe you could start with a round of introductions, Christopher. Yes, absolutely. Also, I just wanted to do some kind of, like, quick check. Could people react something if they can hear this? Like, it doesn't matter what you react, just react to anything. Oh, okay, I see. I got one reaction. Come on, people. Are you. Are you, like, listening to jogging or listening to this Twitter space? Other things you could be doing.
Participant Checking In
Okay. Okay. Okay, there we go. Some core in there. All right. I just wanted to do that quick test again. I'm Chris. I am. I am partially responsible for all the things that you don't like about Nomada's token economics, but only partially. And I worked on IBC before. Nemada uses IBC, and I'm excited about that. Oh, what else? Something that, yeah. Not a lot of people might necessarily know is that actually, one of the reasons I first started to seriously get into crypto in the first place was because I heard about Zcash, and I thought one of the critical ingredients to actually make this technology useful was zero knowledge proof so that people could have practical data protection. And once upon a time, I wrote a block explorer for Zcash called z chain, using the in domain in a weird and probably slightly culturally transgressive sort of way.
Background in Crypto
Hope not. So, yeah, once I read a block explorer. That was a long time ago. Now I'm here. And you were anon, too, right? Yes, and I really would love to be anon again. We will see if that happens. It is not feasible in the current world for very reasons, mostly related to civil resistance. But I remain hopeful. Thanks, Adrian. How's it going, Adrian? I work at privacy preserving tech and intents and things like this in distributed systems. I originally got into this space because I was working on censorship resistant e voting protocols to help people using the national ids to vote to be able to orchestrate elections without the sort of necessary involvement of the central government. So I very much. I think the only useful utility of the space is, like, decentralized coordination.
The Importance of Decentralization
And if the thing is not decentralized, the utility of it drops to zero pretty quickly. And, like, you get, like, you know, as Christopher's, you know, imply that you guys don't just come out of nowhere. There are, like, a lot of nons, like, spamming stuff about scammers and whatnot, but, you know. Yeah, no, I got into this, unlike Ethereum in 2016 and then joined Cosmos, built up that stack for a long time. Me, Chris, and I built one of the very first proof of stake validator companies in this. In the world called crypto maps, when everyone thought proof of stake was never going to work. I don't know if people still remember this, but, like, the beginning of 2018, no one thought the mistake was going to be a thing or had any reasonable chance of working.
Personal Connections in the Industry
So, no, I fit around. Yeah. I met you in 2018. You probably don't remember because it was just a brief interaction. We were talking about the cause. Oh, really? At ad con? Yeah, yeah. Whoa. Funny. Yeah. I just remember you as that person. Sorry. Now that we're having this very heartwarming discussion, I just remember you as that person on the Cosmos forums, I was like, you know, finally someone kind of reasonable is showing up. And then I wondered who it was for a long time. Yeah. I mean, I was kind of a dick, I think. I, like, really just came in to, you know, like, to really hold, put fire under people, to like, you know, explain themselves and their decisions and, you know, speak truth to power kind of thing, but.
Reflections on Governance Proposals
Okay. My one complaint is that cryptium labs made one and exactly one cosmos hub governance proposal. I think it was proposal number seven. And went to all this effort to, like, format the proposal in latex. So it showed up as this beautiful PDF. It had everything organized. Looked so like, I don't know, it looked like the Cosmos hub was a well organized SeAl team or something. I don't know if Seal teams use latex. Probably not. Bad example. But that didn't get. I was hoping that would be memed into existence and it didn't work. So I'm sad. I feel like I was delayed, like I didn't do my homework because I think I came in doing Cosmos up governance work after that. But yeah.
Future Aspirations
Yeah, maybe I should enjoy myself. I'm gavin from knowable. I was on the Figment founding team. I was actually the first employment employee at Figment. I also started Figment capital with Lauren. And then Jim came in later. James. James is running it now. He's done an amazing job. Yeah. And I kind of wanted to go my own way to, you know, because I really like this thesis. I liked what Figment had done as being the core team for the graph.
Community and Core Teams
And I was like, I had really encouraged this, the figment to go this way because I thought it's a really great opportunity to do something beyond staking. And I think that it's good for everyone to have multiple core teams, not just one founding team, being responsible for everything. I really wanted to pursue this and weren't pursuing this further with figment. So this is what. This is why I started knowable and we're a contributor core team for no matter, and we are trying to attract others to do the same because I think it's a really great opportunity and I think. And it's just there are so many potential wins to be had rather than right now we have a lot of mercenary capital and passive people will buy a token and then they'll kind of wait or they'll have scream on Twitter devs do something, or they'll. Then there are teams that are just set up to go from one team to the next that has recently done a raise so that they can kind of get paid and then move on.
Building Community Roots
But what I'd really like to see is people setting roots down, like, being actually real members of the community and longer time horizons to pursue the success instead of just like, launching new token after new token. Anyway, that's a really long intro. Sorry. Yeah. So maybe we can start most about. We can start with like we did last time. What are you most excited about for Novada? Yeah, I mean, I can start. I think I. Personally, I'm excited about actually decentralization. I think in the last couple of years, especially since probably 2020 or so, 2021, we really lost this thesis that the stuff actually decentralized and the matter is fully decentralized. The community runs all the validators, they run all the infrastructure, they run all the wallets from day one, it's a fully decentralized thing.
The Role of Decentralization
And I thought this was always a good idea when networks like near Cosmos, Solana, Polkadot, they all launched. It's actually fully decentralized things. I'm very excited to be able to go back to those routes. And again, it's also fully open source. It's actually decentralized, usable open source software, which I'm super excited about. The other thing is, I think long term we'll need to experiment more with data protection guarantees and privacy protection guarantees, because I just don't see the space getting any sort of real world traction without it. And I think no matter here is very unique because it just does one thing and does one thing well. And I think especially in sort of the ZK world, we have the problem that we're trying to do too many things too quickly.
Finding a Path Forward
And so my hope is that with no matter and that we can slowly start figuring out what specific path forward we want to take based on what people actually want to use the protocol. It's not a lot to describe what final protocol necessarily needs to look like. It's more like this basic thing works. Let's see where we can take it from here. Christopher, what are you excited about? I'll keep it short and simple. I am excited about using shielded transfers and shielded actions and seeing governance in action. I think Namata brings, if you want to summarize it, basically two kind of crazy new features to the entertained world.
Innovations in Governance and Funding
The first is multi asset shielded transfers along with shielded actions, shielded set rewards, and the incentive structure there to facilitate shared data protection for assets at rest, which is the most important thing. And the second is the kind of governance and public goods funding system, which is really, I mean, although Nemata, you know, uses tendermint and speaks IBC, the interoperability protocol developed by the cosmos ecosystem, nomad does not have cosmos style governance. At least it has something that's quite different and has some different features like public goods funding and different mechanisms. And those were, at least from my perspective, developed largely thanks to the learnings from Cosmos governance.
Addressing Adoption Challenges
So I'm hoping that some interesting dynamics, in particular, decentralized capital allocation infrastructure and stuff like this, could flourish there. Further to that, I'm excited that there's that people have actually paid attention and learned from some of the pains that we've had, long standing pains that we've had in the cosmos space, rather than just launching another Cosmos hub mirror, we've actually got some new things to work with here. I'm pretty excited about that. Broadly, I'm really excited about tackling the adoption problem. We've talked long about how we're so close to adoption, but it's been, like, a lot of years of saying that broadly in crypto, and I think probably, like, the principal reason that we don't see adoption.
Data Security in Transactions
This is a big claim, but I think it's because no discerning organization is going to expose their most financial or their most sensitive information, like their financial relationships. So I think that if I. Anyone's going to be able to actually leverage these unique and powerful properties, they also have to be assured not only that their transactions are secured, but their data is secured as well. Personally, as a user, I'm so excited. It's been way too long. I have so many things fragmented everywhere because I'm trying loosely, to preserve some sort of privacy. I'm anoma backer, and when I. Even when I went to make that to, you know, send that transaction, I was like, okay, like, how do I do this?
The Challenges of Anoma
And I remember Adrian just being like, do what everyone does. Like, use an exchange. What's your favorite mixer right now? I can't remember, like, what? Because I can't. I didn't want to do it with Kucoin anymore because they started using KYC. Because the problem with KYC is then, like, it's good until it's not. As soon as you've used the KYC exchange for doing all this, then if they go bankrupt or if someone buys them or whatever, then everything, like, all of your data gets exposed. And so, you know, it's just.
Pain Points and Opportunities
It's a nightmare. It's very painful. And I'm so glad that there's, like, this is finally on the horizon to solve this. This pain point in particular. I'm also really excited about actual community ownership, like, exploring this as an experiment. I mean, it's aka PGF, but, like, you know, when the cosmos hub was running, when the. When the cosmos hub was new, I was already saying, like, we need to. As soon as we had the. The community pool, I was like, we need to use this. I was the first to have to use the community pool to have a proposal pass, and I use this to try to lower the barrier to entry for people to be able to get a fair shake to accessing community pool assets.
Sustainability in Community Governance
And I don't know if it was particularly did a good job of that or not because I don't know how well that's being used these days. But I do maintain that things like centralized support entities like the ICF or even the Noma foundation, we shouldn't be depending on these. They're not sustainable and they're not accountable in the way they need to be to the community at large. Whereas using community funded community funding can be accountable totally to the chain. And it also gives rise to real community ownership. I think.
Efficient Decision-Making
Yeah, I agree. Yeah. I mean, no, I was just going to say to that point. I mean, it's precisely that understanding and some experiences of Cosmos governance. Frankly, despite all of your amazing efforts, that led to a large part of what Namada has changed in the design of governance in the PGF system, particularly this idea of having public good stewards that have more, let's say, of an ability to specialize. I mean, I think one, frankly, I mean, you could be charitable and call it sort of experimental discovery and less charitable and call it a design flaw.
Navigating Governance Challenges
But certainly one aspect of Cosmos governance is that cosmos style governance is that everything happens through these giant proposals which everybody votes on. Right? There's like, you know, that can seem like democracy, but it's like cargo cult democracy. Like, it's not democracy that anyone wants. You don't want to have a system of governance. Everyone must vote on every decision. First, because voting is not actually census building. Voting is like tallying things and creating some amount of social legitimacy, helpful, but it's not really the essential part of governance. And second, because it's super inefficient that, like, usually what you want to do as a community, even thinking as an organism with some kinds of different needs, is craft specific, you know, parts, areas, public good stewards, in this case, who are responsible for, you know, thinking about an area of public goods that's of concern to the nomadic community and funding those.
Reimagining Governance Efficiency
And the community still has some kind of check, but there's this ability to specialize and make much more efficient decisions. I think another reason why. Why, for example, it's very hard for the Cosmos hub treasury or something like this, to get good deals, even good. Even sometimes cosmos hub treasury wants to invest in stuff, even good investment deals, is that it's this giant governance function nobody wants to deal with and that can't move quickly, etcetera. So I hope that this experiment might open up new directions in exactly the way you're proposing here.
Seeking New Opportunities
Yeah, I think it's a huge opportunity. If we can have functional funding, like, I mean, that's one of the things that really defines us as an open source community, is this ability to have this incentivization layer, these incentivization layers. And so, like, if we can do it in our own backyard, then we can probably do it in the, like, real, well, like, or better in the broader space, and maybe that transposes to the real world. So this would, like, real world, sorry, the, like, in person world outside of the digital world. Pretty excited about that as well.
Community Stewardship in Governance
It's also interesting when you look at the overall l one l two space, no one seems to have really figured. Out a good structure for this, because. I think most people didn't really experiment with this idea of community stewards. And so you either ran to this problem that I think Tezos, Cosmos and Polkadot ran into, which is no one. So everything had to go by global governance. And this just ended up being too slow and too controversial. And so, like, people argued over, like, spend weeks or months arguing over like a five K proposal. And on the other side, I think the other problem was also actually the community pools that these treasuries ended up becoming so large in nominal terms because you couldn't spend them down fast enough, that this just keeps piling on the pressure for governments to make the correct choice.
Learning from Past Mistakes
And yes, I think having stewards and having sort of a continuous stream that stewards should start dispersing is actually going to be a much more sustainable model, where if global governance wants to make large ad hoc choices, they can always, like, they don't have to rely on community pool building up over time, they can just like, take this directly and use of the global token supply to mint new tokens for a specific opportunity. But so you don't have to carry all this dead weight around, which really, in the end, almost always comes down to proposals that just slash it all or slash 90% of it, because it's too much of a loadstone around our necks in terms of being able to move forward.
Navigating the Governance Landscape
Yeah, it's brag worthy, and if only until it starts to become embarrassing, you can't allocate it effectively. Okay, but we're here for a very specific reason. There have been a lot of discussions and anticipation and maybe some anxiety around this balances proposal. A lot of the discussions are happening in discord, but there aren't. I know that discord and the people who are in discord are not necessarily the entire nomadic community, there are probably a number of folks who are in there who are not in there, or at least not talking in there that are part of the community.
Understanding Community Dynamics
Are there, like when you think of the. Parts on discord where one person is 100 people, I think both realities exist, right? Yeah. And so, like, when you think about the who the Nemana community is, because that came up before from the last call. Like, this is hard. I don't expect you to give me an exhaustive answer, but I'm just wondering, are there maybe some unintuitive parts that you would consider the Nevada community that just aren't necessarily visible to people? Just super quickly to me, actually, I think the large part of the mother community isn't visible on discord necessarily.
Community Interaction and Engagement
Right? Like, it's not going to be a million people to me, at least. I can't interact with a million people. I can interact with a couple of hundred people. And so for me, something like the folks at the shielding summit in Brussels. Like Brussels? Yeah, Belgium. Like, I think those are actually a large part of, an important part of the community of them other. But I think they're probably underrepresented because a lot of these people don't like spending lots of time arguing with strangers on discord forums. Right. And so I think the Internet filters for a very sort of specific subset. And I think one of the parts that's probably underrepresented is more people, like, hanging out in the real world. Yeah, I think that's. And on discord, I mean, there's also, like, I think it's always helpful if you've met people, like, at least once in real life, or at least by extension, you've met someone that has met someone else in real life.
Skepticism and Anonymity in Online Interactions
I'm always very skeptical if there's sort of like someone yelling at me anywhere, whether it's a Twitter discord or forum or just getting the Internet that I don't know, no indirect connection to. But, you know, like something like Namada attracts, like the kind of like, at least in the, especially in the early community, like many people who actually don't want to be known in person or don't want to reveal their, you know, their personal identity. So it's interesting. I think it'll be, I think it'll be an interesting to try to surface those signals effectively given, you know, the kind of demographic. Yeah, to be fair, I don't know if I agree. I think no matter, like, this kind of, like, technology attracts people that don't want to have their, like, that don't want to be popular on Twitter, but I think they don't mind, like, talking to you in real life.
Personal Experiences and Community Representation
I met. I met three people in Brussels who did not want to, who, like, specifically were like, okay, we'll will, like, meet you, but did not reveal themselves to anyone else. Exactly. This is sort of my point. Like, they still reveal themselves to you. Like, I'm just. I think most people are more like that. That's sort of fun. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Fair enough. Okay, Christopher, what do you think? It's a good question. I was thinking about it last week after our space and some of the discussions. I mean, I think it's very difficult to define what community, you know, is. And it's always, there's not one community. There are many communities. Different people talk to different people.
The Nature of Community and Participation
We live in a world of pretty fragmented discourse, even with some kind of dominant platforms like discord and twitter. I mean, to me, from my perspective, I define the community, at least the community that I care about is the people who participate. And participation can come in a lot of different forms, and it can come on a lot of different platforms. But I, you know, if. I mean, if I see you participating, that's something that I want to engage with as a community member. If I think it's coming in good faith, even if I disagree sort of with some specific content, if I think the intention is good, then that, to me, is contributing to the community? I think that's like, are there people, like, are there parts that you would consider the nomadic community that are maybe less intuitive and maybe hard to see that, you know, because I think.
Fragmentation of Discussions and Hidden Communities
I think for the most part, when people are saying, hey, the community is saying this, it's like the people talking in. There are people who are talking about things in discord and various channels. There are people talking on the forum, but then there are other people as well. Right? Are there unusual aspects? I mean, I have also, I've met, for example, some people in person who didn't tell me their real names, but they told me, like, their pseudonyms, that they were interested in the matter or something like this. That's a little bit related to what you were talking about. And I would consider that something. I mean, coming to an in person event is a huge commitment, I think.
The Role of Private Discussions in Communities
I mean, I've seen a lot of good discussions in discord and on the forums sometimes. I mean, I imagine that there are a lot of parts of the community that are just not visible, maybe especially to me, honestly, maybe there are discussions that people want to have in private, and I think that's totally fine and even good, you know, not every. I don't want to intermediate communications. Right. So I hope that there's a lot of community going on that I don't know about. And it's not exactly answered your question. Well, there are a lot of balances, or there are a lot of addresses in the balances. Toml and it's interesting because, like, it was like, if we say that, you know, if we assume that these balance or these addresses are represent members of the Nevada community, I think, like there, I mean, I actually don't know how to really put it.
The Challenge of Decoding Community Engagement
You know, there's a percentage of these percentage of people who are in the armada discord who have addresses and balance and Tumblr, but there's also probably a large cohort that are not talking in discord that have that are imbalances. TomlJennae yeah, I bet that's true. I mean, I'm not sure that I would take balances. I don't really think that token holders are. I think they're relevant, maybe, to some definitions of community, but I'm not sure that I would take them to be the definition, especially with an airdrop and stuff. I think some people may choose to change their positions or engage in market activities, especially with Novada's free market launch to be. One of the benefits of every market launch is that it actually gives you a better signal for who the community is.
Perspectives on Alignment and Synergy
It's coming at the same question almost from two different perspectives. And how, like, you know, philosophically, there's. There's alignment, but how do you see alignment? Like, between. I mean, they're two separate chains. They're going to each have their own separate token. How do you see alignment there? Honestly, I think that, like, people wouldn't necessarily be asking this question if these were just different projects more clearly built by different teams. Like, if there were, you know, no matter as one thing and enoma as another thing, and there were no question of how they were related to each other, they would seem obviously synergistic. Like most cosmos chains, I think people understand to be synergistic. There are more assets that you can send around. There are more in the case, especially of talking about data protection, there's more potential fuel for the shielded set, or so to speak, you know, and from my perspective, I mean, I expect that core development of both of these projects will decentralize, of course, but us working on them both initially just makes them more synergistic.
Connections Between Projects and Backers
But there's more of a connection than that, because the balances proposal connects them, necessarily, the backers. The enuma backers have an allocation in the balances. Yes, that's true, I think, to double down. Chris. I think, actually, this is very beneficial. Like, if you look at. Again, if you look at Ethereum, I think no one considers optimism to be competitive here. Like, they're very synergistic things. And actually, I think in the case of namala. And these things are much more synergistic. And I think that it's also fine that there is some overlap in sort of token holders. This may continue forward. Right. Like this may diverge in the future. This may become closer in the future. This is sort of really up to the communities in the end on how much does, how close do you want to have an overlap between the op holders and the ETh holders? But actually, I think in this case, as Chris was saying, I think no matter.
Community Dynamics and Freedom of Choice
Much better position than most of these other things, because they can be much more closely aligned with each other. Yeah, sorry, were you going to say something? I was just going to say that. I mean, personally, I expect there to be a lot of overlap in the communities. Like, I consider myself to be in both, but I also think that what people want to do should be up to them, which is one reason why there are two things. Right. I think that provides more freedom of choice, and some people may be more interested in data protection. Some people may be more interested in other things. That's what this kind of free market launch and whole project is about as far as I'm concerned. Yeah.
Discussion on Network Allocation
So in the simplest kind of form, why do I. Why aren't backers getting one third of the Nemata network in this proposal? I want to note here that, like, this is just a choice. You know, it's something that we proposed. It's not, we didn't have any legal obligation to do this. The Noma backers have supported us, honestly, and that's why. And I think that it would be, you know, it behooves us to support those who support us. So I see it as a form of reciprocity. I think a lot of other people have also supported us, and we've gone to a lot of efforts, like the RPGF program, for example. But you can read more about online, which includes allocations in the Genesis block by, you know, people who didn't give money to the foundation or anything like this. I also think that there will be, you know, after the network starts, opportunities for people to express their preferences in various ways. And probably the membership of the community will change. And that's well and good as it should be.
Long-term Privacy and Community Structure
Yeah, I think the. So this proposal is really aimed to include people that care about long term privacy guarantees. And I think, like, giving tokens to the Zcash community, like the ECC, and like, doing like to developers that worked on a bunch of these open source libraries as well. So backwards just seems like the best way to structure a long term healthy community that fundamentally cares about providing long protection, privacy guarantees. That makes sense a lot like, makes a lot of sense to me and. Oh, sorry, go ahead. Yeah, I mean, I just also want to note that, to me, part of the goal with stuff like the modest PGF system is to actually create capital allocation options that aren't venture capital. Venture capital has some advantages, some disadvantages for the kind of thing we wanted to pursue in the way we want to pursue it. I think it was the right choice, but I think it was even the only choice, honestly.
Governance and Capital Allocation
But I also think that there's a dearth of options available at the moment, and I'm really interested in helping support, build, and participate in protocols which bring more options on the table for large scale capital allocation. Same, very much the same. I know, personally, I think that we'll be advocates of having similar kind of reciprocity, I think noble. We would like to see that same sort of, kind of alignment those who, since Nemada, no one could invest directly into it. Like with capital, people have invested other, you know, invested time and effort and I, and that sort of thing. It would be great to see, like, we can work on something that might make sense for the anoma community to have a similar kind of like, reciprocity. I mean, to me, reciprocity is basically, I wouldn't go so far as to say the organizing principle of, like, all healthy social relations, but at least, let's say the organizing principle that we should think about when we're constructing, or anyone is constructing, you know, tokenomics proposals, economies, flows within economies, the token should follow the actual work, right? Not the other way around.
Allocation Strategies and Governance Considerations
Yeah, I agree. So, yeah, speaking of like, allocation, like allocating outside of the standard, you know, models that we've seen pop up like the foundation, you know, VC kind of, we've got a PGF account. And some of the questions that came up were about, like, if we have this great like, system, or potentially great system for allocating community funds, why put PGF, like future PGF earmarked? Why allocate earmarked for PGF tokens to entities instead of directly to the on chain account? Like the on chain PDF account? Like, why not just. Yeah, like it seems like. I think people were wondering, yeah, why that makes sense to do that. I can start with a super quick thing. And then, Chris, you gave a good answer on the previous recording. This proposal sort of provides an infinite allocation to governments, right? And I just want to be, and this is true for all these systems, whether this is ethereum or bitcoin or.
Governance Implications in Allocation Proposals
No matter, it doesn't matter. Like, governance is fundamentally the ability to alter the economics of these systems. Like bitcoin, the social layer. Yes, the social layer is the most. Yes. But, like, the bitcoin social layer can print 100 trillion bitcoins more. Right. Like, there's nothing that's, like, that's going to come and go, like, no, you're not legally allowed to do this. And so, like, all these proposals, including the Genesis proposal, have an implied infinite allocation to governance. So it would make no sense, in my opinion, to allocate directly to governance because governance has an infinite allocation anyway, right? And if governance wants tomorrow spend, I don't know, an extra 10% of the Genesis supply on something, they can. There's like, nothing that's stopping governments from doing this. And actually doing it this way is sort of like a more inflation minimizing proposal, because government, like, you only allocate what.
Rationale for Governance Structures and Allocations
What government actually can allocate, what governance actually wants to allocate. And that was my short thing. Chris. Yeah, I mean, I don't have that much to add to that. Mostly I would just add that I think it's important to kind of facilitate at least somewhat smooth transitions in ecosystems. And I see these initial allocations to Luminara and the Innova foundation for future PGF as allocations that those entities should be using to help namata transition to fully controlling and dispersing its own PGF funding. And I expect that to happen because those allocations are finite. I. Whereas governance's ability to allocate is infinite. So in some sense, it's built protocol. That makes sense to me.
Concerns About Control and Governance
I know that also some people had concerns about control, because it's one thing to have these different allocations earmarked for different things, but if you add them all up, like, for example, we at knowable control Luminara. And so if you combine knowable and luminara, what. What these entities are responsible for, you have a certain amount of control over the Nevada network. And then if you do the same thing, if you have the co founders for the Noma foundation and for heliacs, I think there were some concerns, and I think, just if I may add, my own thought here is that it's probably also important to recognize that there are amounts that are marked luminar that are distributed to individuals, not to the luminara organization itself. And I think that's probably the same.
Addressing Allocation and Control Concerns
Right. I think there may be two questions here. Let me split, address them separately. No worries. I think the first question is there's this category called early core contributors, and early core contributors includes a bunch of, it's over 200 individuals. Some of those members, some of those individuals worked at or previously worked for Helix, knowable informal systems luminara most of them didn't. I mean, I think, I don't think Helix doesn't have that many, but those allocations are individual. They're not going to be organizations. So I mean, I don't know what people, what decisions people will make, but it's up to them from a structure of control perspective, at least personally. I mean, maybe they're related, but they're like related in the same sense that, I don't know, people in the community are generally related to each other.
Exploring Governance and Community Dynamics
The second question is about governance, control, and I think this is a good open discussion topic. I think the concerns you bring up are reasonable. I haven't actually seen this discussed a lot so far. Maybe I was just missing the thread. It's very possible I didn't see anything about this on the forums, but I'm, yeah, at least personally, I'm open to discuss what people would like to see here and what's possible, stuff like this. I think this is maybe less a question of the allocations proposal and more a question of like, how did the first few phases of network governance work?
