There is a 500m QRDO ecosystem fund. I argue that right now we do not need that. The eventual build out of an ecosystem can come down the road. If necessary we can donate grants from treasury or we can decimalise… we could even launch a 2nd token for the fusion chain.
But for now - its vital we see the QRDO token flourish and the inflation rate is the achilles heel. We need ultrasound money NOW.
This is a short proposal for communtiy members to consider… Please be respectful and comment your opinions.
SUPPLY DEMAND DYNAMICS -
SUPPLY CHANGE:
To create a supply shock i propose the following:
ADVANCED AGGRESSIVE BURN SCHEDULE
5 x 100m QRDO burned each month for 5 months
Alongside:
5 month voluntary lock up for stakers to receive double yield
DEMAND CHANGE -
Its time we demand that high value users of the protocol finally be forced to pay QRDO to transact. I propose an immediate removal of stablecoins to pay for fees.
Additionally, i propose that all institutional users must either:
a) pay a monthly subscription in line with competitor rates
b) stake a minimum amount of QRDO (200 - 500k tokens) in order to continue having their free lunch.
Its about time we value our protocol how it should be.
Supply restrictions mean nothing without reasoned demand
QRDO continues to be instrumental in the future of custody…drastic decisions should only take place in drastic circumstances…we’re not there yet (despite silly articles)
It should definitely be burned, it should be advertised to everyone with advertising work with https://coinmarketcal.com/ & twitter and other qredo partners.
I do not agree with the subscription fee
the longer the lock the more apy. can be great as long as the ratio is not exaggerated
stable payments would be more beneficial to access if they staked a min amount
I like it. but I would urge to burn close to 300m tockens.
the ecosystem fund is the main controller of whole network. it has a rule to buyback the tockens from circulating with a minimum of 35% of service as well as help determine staking rate and support staking fund as well.
However, I believe the proposal is great. but in order to align it well with the tokenlogy, I see burning 300m tockens is really great.
such proposal if implemented, Qredo is nominated to build big community bigger than what we could expect.
I appreciate the proposal to burn 500 million QRDO tokens as a means to create a short-term supply shock and increase demand. While I understand the desire for immediate action to boost the token’s value, I respectfully disagree with this approach.
In my opinion, these 500 million tokens could hold great potential for the project in the long term. And while right now they aren’t employed this way, they also don’t negatively impact the current supply-demand imbalance in the market.
Instead, I believe our focus should be on driving demand to the platform by encouraging users to transact, pay fees, and consequently contribute to the burning of QRDO tokens. This strategy, I believe, while much more difficult and whose impact only be seen on a much longer time horizon than the above proposal, it will create a more sustained long-term value for QRDO.
I acknowledge that attracting immediate interest through burning tokens may have short-term benefits, but it might not be the most efficient way to ensure the project’s future success. If, in the future, these tokens cannot be efficiently utilized to drive platform demand, it can still be considered the option of burning them.
I may miss something, but those are my 2 cents as an accumulator of QRDO tokens who plans to not sell them until the market values the project in the billions or more.