3 years to deflation…needs to be 12 months max…is this a viable forecast and can we model?
2 Likes
The lawyerspeak regarding how we’ll achieve deflation is not very helpful I’ll be honest.
2 Likes
1 Like
Service fees
We need a transparent model/mechanism/formula to show what will be demonstrably processed as opex Vs that which is tipped into the eco system fund
From what I see above we could process 99.9% of service fees to OPEX and top the remainder to ecosystem…the above should be as formulaic as the release rate function for rewards surely…or as a minimum we need to understand who has say on how service fees are distributed via tokenology
Again need to understand how OPEX will be paid if everything is used to support qrdo token
Are we creating our own viscous cycle by buying qrdo to the sell it support fiat wages/bills/running costs?
For clarity I’m not against OPEX…we need smart folks and we need to pay for them…but it should be modelled accurately. The model on tipping is not transparent from what I see
Side note…Further to this I need educating on what is locked eco system Vs unlocked
Hi all, glad to see the engagement and questions regarding the QRDO Tokenology paper. The team is already collecting the feedback from all of the posts and questions that have been posted during the last days, and will prepare responses and feedback.
Your voice counts and matters, so keep it coming and contribute towards the future of Qredo Network.
Thanks everyone
This is a great idea and not only for end users. Builders can also benefit from it. Grants for developers that build their solutions on top of Qredo Network. This will incentivise them to kick off their projects and all those fees will end burned. This will accelerate growth and deflation.
Grants could be requested through governance and community would vote.
1 Like
Fair comment to accelerate burn faster. Nevertheless, we must think that there are also the service fees which users are incentivised to pay with QRDO which will build demand.
If protocol fees become too high, it will discourage any builder on the Network. It must be sustainable for builders. 1 QRDO is a good starting point.
2 Likes
General opinion and suggestions on tokenology proposal.
First of all, in long run this model is very sustainable, which means it has good workflow of turning generated fees into rewards, usually rewards for most projects are just coming with pre determined percentage of supply and at some point it gets depleted, in this Qredo has better model.
160m burn is good however i hope it will happen immediately, to have good impact on change of sentiment, as we all know now it’s not the best.
As we all know Qredo price is at ATL and everyone is struggling HOWEVER let’s use it in our advantage and make Qredo fee worth 0.3-0.5$ equivalent of QRDO tokens. This way we are using it in our advantage while tokens are low because we will burn 3-6tokens per TX and when price goes back up we will not even need to adjust fees, it will still feel natural for users who pay fees.
Eth for example has very high fees but usage of it still was not affected by it, we are targeting big companies not some small players for whom extra 0.05-0.1$ matters a lot.
We need to create vesting schedule wifh appropriate unlock dates, it should be on par with burn rate, more burn = more unlock. In this way, we both (investors and team) will share the same interest of increasing deflationary measures.
This 1 Qredo per token fee is not sustainable because if price goes to 1$ you will need to adjust anyway to 0.1 Qrdo to keep at 0.1$ per tx range, so burn rate will get 10x slower, right? Even now its not big enough.
So please, take my suggestion of 0.3-0.5$ fixed fee per TX, this way it will be forever balanced, fee seems fair and it will have good impact on deflation.
2 Likes
This new tokenology proposal is yet again out and out founders and investors centric leaving the average holder diluted quite significantly (i.e. after a ~99% plus drawdown already).
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Any new proposal from here on should squarely put token holder(i.e. retail) value proposition as a number one priority above everything else… The founders and seed investors have already benefitted and made quite big money till date…
As proposed in the Telegram channel, at a minimum
- Get rid of the second billion tokens… burn them (which was vaguely hinted earlier) stating the the team shall ONLY use the second chunk of billion tokens if required*
- Let funds and validators or whoever want to now become a stakeholder in the network market buy (still cheap as founders say if the IDO price is 22c), it is at a near 70-80 perc discount as on 1 AUG 23…
- Lock up founders tokens and vest based on market cap, and distribution caps… Just stop this absolute down only trend, dumping from the top on retail
- Incentivize the token holders from all possible avenues
DO NOT give access to further liquidity to any funds or investors or especially the founders who will likely ruthlessly dump on the retail…
Any liquidity henceforth should be to either invest back in the network to boost the TVL or be spent as holder rewards (i.e. again retail only) or towards tangible well defined growth of the protocol revenue …
All attempts must be made to curb the draw downs from the investors/seed/founders who have gained undue advantage
2 Likes
I think overall a good tockenproposal but I agree with Game changer…there should be some recognition either within or outside of the tokenology parameter to rewards the long serving token holders…who have remained loyal to the project throughout every draw down
I’d appreciate a snap shot of non Vesting wallets and true hodlers with a view to a one time reward structure based on longevity and loyalty…
It’s a contradiction no doubt as causes net net inflation so we may need to get creative
Community holders should feel some love either way
Network fees in the native token are perfectly suited, its how every other chain works, the calculation of the fees on other chains is calculated, often by blocksize or data storage. The value of the token is often a factor of the value that the chain secures, as the value has to be enough to discourage 51% attacks.
The Qredo chain is somewhat different, we can’t use 2018 thinking here to define a 2023 project.
The flows of value need to come from the users, who spend QRDO to participate, flow to the validators who are incentivised to keep the network secure.
The best way to keep fees low but increase value is for users to use the network.
Circulating supply and demand for the token is all that matters, if you own a scarce asset that everyone needs, then the value on the market is higher.
So the more we use the network, the more will be needed for fees, spent, burnt and rewarded. The faster we will move to a deflationary position.
So hold assets on Qredo, conduct DeFi using Qredo and connect your exchanges.
1 Like
It’s about time that $QRDO token holders utilise the technology that the Qredo Network was designed for. As Ben says we need to use the web3 wallet to connect to defi and connect our vaults to exchanges to drive up the usage and participate as active USERS, not just holders. Let’s set the trend and blaze the trail.
Merry Cryptmas,
Love Father
1 Like
Here some of the questions we gathered on the governance forum, with some answers to help you:
Question: By releasing the tokens and locking them, will we be able to keep track of how they are vested, and will we see all these details outlined?
Answer: Yes, by releasing the tokens and locking them, we will be able to keep track of how they are vested. All the details related to the vesting of tokens will be outlined and transparently available for the community to view. Here is a recap of proposed vesting for QRDO Tokenology:
- For the Qredo Team and Advisors, the allocation and vesting schedule remains unchanged.
- For Public Sale Qredo Investors, the allocation and vesting schedule remains unchanged. Note that Private Sale Qredo Investor vesting has already concluded.
- For the Ecosystem Fund, a proposal to expedite vesting of the remaining allocation of ~55 million tokens and allocate an additional 390 million tokens for staking rewards. Tokens in this fund will be locked and released based on the release rate function.
- For the Staking Fund, a proposal to allocate 150 million tokens for decentralization bootstrapping. Tokens in this fund will be locked and released based on the vesting decay rate.
- For the Treasury Fund, a proposal to expedite vesting of the remaining allocation of ~25 million tokens and an allocation of an additional 250 million tokens to fund partner programs, grants and loans to market makers and exchanges to improve QRDO liquidity in the market.
- For the Public Goods Fund, a proposal to allocate 50 million tokens that are to be instantly vested and locked. As the fund will primarily be used for airdrops to incentivize transactions, it is expected that the majority of these fees would be used for protocol fees and will ultimately be burned.
- For QRDO Token Burns, a proposal to burn 160 million QRDO tokens.
The vesting process will be carefully managed and governed through the Qredo network, ensuring that the token release schedule aligns with the network’s long-term sustainability goals. This transparency is an essential aspect of the Qredo Tokenology, fostering trust and confidence among the community and stakeholders.
Question: What is the minimum stake required to run a node?
Answer: 2,000,000 QRDO tokens
Question: When will this delegated proof-of-stake (dPOS) be launched?
Answer: There is no date given yet. We aim at first releasing our fPOS model and update, and then the dPOS model later this year.
Question: Why was the decision made to charge 1 QRDO per transaction, and can we consider fees denominated in USD or a scaled model?
Answer: The decision to charge 1 QRDO per transaction was made as part of the tokenomics model to support network security i.e., to prevent spamming attacks, and incentivize staking. Considering fees denominated in USD or a scaled model might be worth exploring for better user experience.
Question: Is the 21-day unbonding cycle in the staking model a necessity, and is it a cosmos-dependent aspect of decentralization?
Answer: The 21-day unbonding cycle is a necessity to enhance the stability of network security.
Question: Are some team members also investors?
Answer: Yes, many team members own QRDO tokens, aligning their interests with the community.
Question: How will the burning of protocol fees impact the total circulating supply?
Answer: The burning of protocol fees will impact the total circulating supply by reducing it over time. As protocol fees are collected from various transactions within the Qredo network, they are subsequently burned, permanently removing them from circulation. This burning mechanism creates deflationary pressure on the QRDO token supply, leading to a reduction in the total circulating supply. The impact of burning protocol fees on the circulating supply will depend on the transaction volume and usage of the Qredo network over time. Higher transaction volumes and increased adoption of the Qredo ecosystem can lead to a more significant reduction in the total circulating supply through protocol fee burning.
Question: How will service fees paid in stable coins be used to buy QRDO?
Answer: Some institutional users prefer, for ease of use and accounting, to manage their fees in USD denominated tokens. Based on that, we will allow services fees to be paid in stablecoins, but in the backend those will be used to purchase QRDO.
Question: Is it possible to achieve deflation within 12 months?
Answer: Achieving deflation within 12 months is not possible.
2 Likes
Long term holder here who hasn’t been active in the community but plans to hodl for many years.
The updated Tokenology makes 95% sense to me. The major bit I’d reflect on has been mentioned above: the 1 QRDO protocol fee that favors big accounts once QRDO takes off and will be a hurdle for many. Qredo, if successful, will likely be worth much more than a few billion USD, which means the fee will be a few USD.
Other than that, I love not only how much thought has been put into this but how it’s designed. I disagree that it flavors founders and investors. We all sit in the same boat of currently sinking QRDO price. We all suffer the same from this.
BUT, one more suggestion to reward long term holders: Increase rewards for QRDO locked longer term. The longer a QRDO has been locked, the higher the reward. Must not be a crazy amount, but why not having e.g. a 10% increase in rewards for every year a QRDO token is locked, up to 200% of the “normal” rewards a new staker gets?
What matters most now is ADOPTION! Institutions and retail seeing the value of the Qredo platform, sign up, and use it to manage their Cryptos.
1 Like
Only just listened to the AMA from last week. Understand now why the protocol fees are charged in QRDO rather than USD. Makes 100% sense. Still would opt for a lower pricing, call it 0.1 QRDO / transaction. That would still equate to almost 1 USD at the ATH price.
2 Likes
Good to see you in here sir
I like your ideas/suggestions
I have to assume the team will scale down fees on the basis of future success but right now not a problem we have the luxury of worrying about 
Thank you sir, appreciate the warm welcome 
Things can change fast in this industry though, I’d vote for an approach with less potential changes in the future.
Maybe a comparison to transactions on other imo similarly foundational blockchains for reference. To make the comparison easy, I’m using the unit tpb = tokens per billion of total supply:
POLYX => 0.07tpb (~1bn total supply, staking tx: 0.07 POLYX)
CHZ => 0.003tpb (~9bn total supply, token transfer: 0.025825 CHZ)
AKT => 0.01tpb (~0.2bn total supply, delegation tx: 0.002327 AKT)
QRDO => 0.5tpb (~2bn total supply, proposal: 1 QRDO)
Granted, you can’t compare everything 1:1, e.g. I haven’t focused on how sustainable all these fees could be in the future in terms of covering the cost to operate the networks. Nevertheless, QRDO would stand by being 10x to 100x more expensive than the above for users to transact on the network.
Let’s be positive about the future, I think the data gives us reason to be, and the platform will only get better 
I would say that the usage of the dMPC which is high level goverance structure for institutional funds, means fees should be higher. Fireblocks customers have to pay 40k annual fee for their inferior product. QRDO powers the protocol and I think that’s a big factor to the comparatively future higher fees that’s IMO a fair deal. Maybe not for retail, but the solution is more team orientated.
Merry Cryptmas,
Love Father
Good point, makes sense.
I guess it depends on the ultimate vision who the protocol will be designed for. Could imagine it to be very valuable for retail as well. E.g. I think it’s a great tool to manage your family’s cryptos (think yours, children, parents etc.). Those would likely be priced out soon.
Don’t know the market, though I’m sure the team has some good data to base the decision on.