Discussion on possible 1INCH tokenomics

2.1 General Proposals
41

For example - 1inch Montly Generate around $2M From slippage

Montly $2M - 10% ( $200k ) - go to ( Pancake , MDex farming eg 120% APY ) = $20K

Montly $20k burning doesnt make sense .

Few reason cause unhealthy inflaction -

  • Airdrop
  • Farming reward

I believe option 3 can solve current problems and bring long-term value to the entire community. As a member of the community, I am very excited that we could help 1inch burn tokens without affecting our benefit (reward) .

Cant wait to Implement it @deacix :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

2 Likes
42

This is what my understanding of option 3 . correct me if im wrong . @k06a

Gov 1inch
Gov 1inch1408Ɨ465 8.47 KB

1 Like
43

learn something from Pancakeswap

we need more people join and change fast!

1 Like
44

If you putting 50% Burn with 50% Distribution Ofcourse the Whales gonna manipulate it + the rewards will be so small that it will not be worth it .

Only relying on Option 3 is a BIG Mistake

1 Like
45

If there is only ļ¼ˆ3ļ¼‰, you will get stable APY 10% reward for how much you deposit. Itā€˜sā€™ fair and there is no toplimit

46

You donā€™t understand . You canā€™t always have a stable APY of 10% . It can go even to 2% then your rewards will drop drastically as more funds are deposited

Relying on just option 3 is not suitable at all . Youā€™ll have miniscule rewards which are not attractive & worth it

2 Likes
47

only move this proposal hereļ¼ Thanks for @Genkai.Shogun

image
image1380Ɨ538 89.2 KB

Revised 1INCH Tokenomics Upgrade : The Next Phase

1 Like
48

image

move this from 1inch Telegram.

1 Like
49

Iā€™ve Posted on How burning can be Streamlined .

Iā€™m Suggesting to burn the tokens until we reach 1 Billion down from 1.5 Billion .

2 Likes
50

I have some confusion. Are we still waiting here?

51

I think it makes sense to have all the options presented and allow vote for percentages distribution of revenue among the options. It takes time to prepare everything for such kind of voting. Also collecting more ideas and taking into account all the opinions.

2 Likes
52

I have a question. Will the result of this discussion turn into a proposal for voting? Better not.I donā€™t have 4M 1inch :sweat_smile: :sweat_smile: :joy: :joy:

53

New Fee Structure Implementation on Top of Reward Claiming

| Optional

Iā€™ve Added Another Point if we should do it or not . Currently there are 0 Fee over Staking , so should we implement such Structure over ā€˜Claim Rewards after task completionā€™

Fees can be embedded into 2nd Point under ā€˜Claim Rewardā€™ Before Claiming Rewards which will be auto deducted

Should be Voted As I donā€™t want it to be posed as an extra burden over the users using 1inch like BANKS or other DEFI projects

if user donā€™t complete the task he will have to Pay Performance Fee

image417Ɨ536 15.9 KB

If Implemented can create another source of income for the protocol

Keep in Mind that the Fee %ages Shown in picture Will Have a Weightage Decided in a Ratio of 40% by Instant Governance + 60% by 1INCH Founders or Team. This Creates an equilibrium

Also As @deacix said already that itā€™s bringing Huge Load to maintain DAO so I think we can also charge once a Quarter or an Year as a Performance fee proportion to the amount of token staked or may be only on the Claim Rewards

4 Likes
54

This Should Be done .

I can think of 4 options now -

We need Weighted Voting on this one .Do people need 1 option or either 2 or all 3

55

Continuing the discussion from Discussion on possible 1INCH tokenomics:

Any new updates sir?

56

I am very depressed about this situation.To be honest, people donā€™t need to change, they just need 1inch.io to run all the time. :shushing_face:

57

First of all, I want to share two articles of AC, hoping to learn from them.

and this

58

I think it is possible to implement support for all the possible options and allow to vote for percentages shares.

3 Likes
59

well,set options and vote! :love_letter:

1 Like
60

letā€™s start. Thanks :handshake::handshake: