Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
AMA with Network Economics WG
Recorded: June 19, 2025 Duration: 0:56:27Space Recording
Short Summary
The NEAR ecosystem is witnessing significant developments as the Network Economics and Security Working Group launches to enhance governance and sustainability. Discussions focus on optimizing yield through adjustments in inflation rates and staking rewards, reflecting community sentiment and emerging trends in the blockchain space.
Full Transcription
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you
hey again uh doing another test i think i got got disconnected earlier. Yeah, I was wondering if we could do a mic check both from Rika and Alan.
Hey, good morning everyone. Can you hear me?
Can you hear me?
Yeah, you're good to go. What about you, Alan?
Yeah, you're good to go.
What about you, Alan?
Hello.
Hello, everybody.
Are you good to hear me?
Yeah, awesome.
Yeah, so this is kind of the second working group
we're featuring in a Twitter spaces.
We'll probably give it like a couple of minutes
to see if more folks are joining.
So maybe we can start at five minutes past.
I don't have an option to play some music.
It would be nice if I could.
But yeah, let's wait a couple of minutes before we start it. I'm not a fan of the music. I don't know. Don't be cruel to who heart is true.
Baby, if I made a man, there's something I might have said.
Please did not forget my past.
The future looks right ahead.
Don't be cruel to who heart is true.
I don't want know where they love
Baby, it's just you
I'm taking a look
Mmm, don't stop thinking of me
Don't make me feel this way
Come on over here and love me
You know what I want you to say
Don't be cruel
To who are this true Love me, you know what I want you to say Don't be cruel, too hard, it's true
Why should we be apart?
I really love you, baby, cross my heart
Let's walk up to the bridge
And let's say hi to you
Then you'll know you'll have me And I know that I'll have you.
I don't be.
True.
I don't know.
Oh, baby.
It's you.
I don't be cruel.
No, it's true.
Don't be cruel.
No, it's true.
I don't want no other love.
Baby, it's just you I'm thinking of.
awesome uh thank you alan there for plugging in a bit of music i think it's uh it sets this
tone the tone a bit uh yeah we also have you and uh joining in as well as one of the endorsed
delegates uh but yeah maybe we can get started So we've been running a couple of Twitter spaces
in the past few weeks,
kind of shedding some light in the different verticals
that are emerging from House of Stakes.
So we've had a couple of spaces with Agora, with Lane,
and this is the second space we're having with a working group. The working group
in question today is the Network Economics and Security Working Group, which is led by Rika,
and Alan is also an active contributor. So maybe we can kick off with quick intros.
I go by Mr. Potato. I am a community contributor in the near ecosystem
and trying to facilitate communication and updates coming from everywhere in the ecosystem and
particularly very excited for what House of Stake is shaping up to be. Rika and Alan, if you want to go ahead.
to be Rika and Alan, if you wanna go ahead.
Yeah, sure. I can jump in here.
My name is Rika.
I'm a delegate with 204 governance.
And I'm also leading the network economics
and security working group, which is a mouthful.
Alan, go ahead.
Hi, everybody.
I'm Alan.
I'm also an Orsail delegate at House of Stake.
I have been on the near-tractical ecosystem since 2021, and I think I have been in crypto
since 2017, at least, more or less.
So right now I'm also leading the governance at Metapool and well,
contributing on different projects on the ecosystem.
Awesome. Yeah, we also have Yuen on stage.
So maybe quick intro from Yuen as well.
Hey guys, I'm Yuen. I'm also an Indoor delegate, but you guys will, if you have been here for a long time, you will see me here and there inside the different group chats, either trolling a bit or like helping the people out whenever they have any issues with Mr. Potato as well as Vinay.
Sorry, Mr. Potato, Vikash as well as Nikhil inside the group.
Awesome. Yeah, and kind of shout out to a lot of the folks from the Metapool community. I see a
number of familiar faces, so good to have a few folks joining from there. Yeah, and I think Metapool
has also been a great reference point when it comes to governance.
It's probably like the longest standing governance initiative we've seen in the near ecosystem.
So great learnings from there.
But I think we can probably dive into the working group itself.
into the working group itself. So maybe for folks who might be a bit perplexed with what the working
group actually is, we could kind of dissect what it is aiming to do and what is it regarding
in terms of like its role. So I think that would be a great starting point.
So I think that would be a great starting point.
Yeah, sure.
I can give a brief overview of what the working group is.
So we're quite new and our mission is to steward the
communication amongst the near community stakeholders and
gauntlets. So what that means is we are trying to understand the implications of a potential reduction in issuance
and the impact on validator sustainability and decentralization.
So I know that's a lot.
And I just wanna say that really we are,
we're just trying to make sure that any,
any sort of impact to the issuance and taking yield is something that the community is aware of
and is okay with. So we're really just trying to serve as that communication arm.
I'll pause it at that. If there's anything, Alan, that you would like to add, please go ahead.
I think it's worth to have a bit of context of why a network economics working group,
even we call it economics infrastructure,
because if we remember, NIR protocol is a delegated proof of stake protocol.
So this basically means that the network is paying validators to maintain the security
inside of the network see how this is also
making sustainable on the long term the development of the ecosystem because when we are paying
security security this is taking the wires or security rewards we are increasing the
circulating supply that exists on the
ecosystem, basically by the design on the tokenomics that we have on it.
Right now, we are making analysis on different tracks on how it can be improved, the way
on how we are handling the economics and the security inside of the network.
So, yeah, there is a strong conversation and a strong narrative right now about how to
modify or reduce the emissions that we have on new tokens.
That's an ongoing talk that we have.
And it's something that we are putting inside of the table, and we are asking many funders
around on how to make this possible.
But let's have like this main goal in the table. We need security on the network and the network
is paying for the security. And at the same time, the security is being paid on your tokens that
are increasing the circulating supply. So is it good or bad is something that everyone needs to have on their own desk.
They have to do their own analysis.
We are here for putting all the information on the table and make it available for the people that require it.
required it. Yeah, I think it's great to kind of do a thorough analysis on like the current
situation before we kind of like even think of like making decisions. And I think this working
group is kind of designed to do that itself. But I think to kind of add more context, maybe we can
give folks in the audience more details around like what
is NEAR's current inflation rate and around staking APIs and what's the kind of split
between stakers and validators and like how are kind of the emissions split as is before
we kind of go into some of the initiatives you guys are planning to work on in the coming weeks.
Yeah, sure. I'll actually preface that's his day job to be an expert in this.
I'm just a delegate.
I have experience with governance
and with managing stakeholders.
So take all of this with a bit of a grain of salt
and the actual practical examples I
will leave to Alan. So as, all right, jumping into it, as far as the inflation rate,
the inflation rate right now for NIR is at 5%. 4.5% goes to the validators and then half of a percent goes to the treasury.
So that's like one pillar.
And then the second one is this taking APY, which is similar, but also quite different.
which is similar but also quite different.
So this taking APY now is at 9.58%.
And you can see that if you go to nearstaking.com,
you can see that the last EMPOC was at 9.58%.
I think, yeah, that's kind of a summary. Alan, if you want to add anything, please.
Yes, I think that part of what we are working right now, again, is making this analysis on on how the economics and security of the network can route sustainable on the long term for the whole ecosystem.
I think this is an interest of everybody that we can have a project that is viable, a network that is viable,
and that can be sustainable in the long term. Just for me putting some numbers on what Rika mentioned,
I will share it to you here on the comments. Well, if you are looking at these spaces, I will share it on Metapool.
Let me share it also on the House of Stakes Twitter account. I will share
the link to the tokenomics on NIR.
So right now we are facing, well, and I mean, this is
non-financial advice, it's just putting information on the table, but we have this APY and inflation
rate is around 5% every year. So there has been past a couple of years since the first
inflation rate happened for a full year. So when we started with 1 billion new tokens,
we generated on inflation, 50 million new tokens from which we added to the supply
We added to the supply these tokens to the network,
and we need a way on how to collateralize all these tokens on value for the ecosystem.
So this means that all the effort that is happening right now needs to propose a value for the tokens that are being generated inside of NIR.
Most of the tokens that are being generated at this moment are being paid for
adding security to the network.
And we also have been working on the past months, and I mean more on the side of
Metapool, the house of stake, on ways to promote having validators
that can pay a lower amount of money to be running validators inside of NIR.
So this means that along with the team that we have on NIR1 that is mainly developing the core at the ecosystem.
We have right now the possibility to have validators that have low cost to maintain
the network, and this also can reduce the impact that we are generating to them for
for making a reduction of emissions.
making a reduction of emissions.
Having the collateral for a lot of these new tokens that are being generated,
and just to say a number, we have 50 million new tokens generated at the coast that we have right now
that will be around 100 million USD being collateralized somehow on the network is something that is adding pressure to all the projects that are working on the ecosystem because they need to have better ways on how to handle this new circulating supply.
This is some doubts that are around on the ecosystem and that we are facing with the work that we are doing on the working group.
And so based on this, we decided to ask the people directly.
And well, me personally, I take lead on the validators to ask them what they think about all of this that is happening. And we started designing a survey that can ask founders, validators, ecosystem members,
how is a reduction on the inflation?
What is the impact that is generated to them?
that is generated to them.
And so far, we have discovered some insights inside of the information that we have so
far, at least for the validator that I have asked personally and I have talked to them.
Some of them mentioned that they are here to stay on the long term.
So making sustainable the economics is a good idea. They think on that
side, some others think that we need to have
the clear numbers on how this will happen. That's also
some other doubts that have been mentioned inside of the
validators. And it's something that is clear.
We need to put the final numbers so the people
that is on all of this node runners company
can make a decision about what they're thinking. But I didn't
feel a pushback. I think that everyone is open to have a conversation about
this. And I think that that's also a benefit for the ecosystem
that we can have an open and very rich conversation about how this can impact on the different community members that we have on the ecosystem.
Awesome. So just to kind of clarify, you're talking about this survey which you put out specifically to the validator stakeholder
right we so we we sent the survey to a lot of different types of people in the near ecosystem
some of them are validators alan was super instrumental in making sure that validators, Alan was super instrumental in making sure that validators have the survey
and answer it. And also just, we also sent it to community members, token holders. I'm
new to the NIR ecosystem. And so we actually had some help from Yvgeny, who I see in this
base now. He's been a very active NEAR member. And so he was able to share the survey with the
community. And we've received about 50 responses. So that has really been what we've been working on.
We just want to see what the community thinks about a potential reduction in issuance and what
are some alternative mechanisms. If there is a reduction, then how can we make sure that this taking APY
is still competitive for validators?
With the survey, I just want to say, like, please take it with a grain of salt because
it is a survey and we actually already received some feedback.
Danny was actually the one who told us this, that there was one specific individual who
told him that he just doesn't know what the answer is, right?
Because this is a very technical subject and yeah so just in
general like let's take the survey with a grain of salt yes and I see
Huynh has his hand up so I will be quiet.
I just want to like give my feedback on it but you could you can continue and I
can like give my view on it afterwards rika oh yeah
no worries i'm actually finished yeah please go ahead all right sounds good so i just want to give
the community a bit more info on the form as well currently it's only sent towards founders or
projects project leads or the the major stakeholders within the near reason is because that we don't
want the forum to be flooded
with more information from the different community members.
We know that you guys do have your own view, your own feedback
that you want to give to the working group.
But we're trying to think about a strategy as well as look
at certain criteria that the current folks inside the NEAR
that have been in here for quite some time, quite a few years to like give
the feedback as well as maybe work together to set a specific metric or specific like a number
or so to say. But if community-wise you guys have any feedback that you want to give maybe
after this call we'll create like a forum thread so that anybody that wants to give like their feedback
that did not have access to the forum to head over there, let us know like what you want to see
happening, what is the numbers that you want to see done to the reduction of the inflation, or like
if you guys have like any ideas or any research from the other ecosystem, please do let us know
because I do know that currently the APR for the near token staking is the highest, if I'm not mistaken, within the Web3 ecosystem.
So this is something that will need to be tackled as an ecosystem as a whole.
The form doesn't really finalize anything. It's just for us to get our feedback and get
ideas from you guys. So just let us know what you guys want to see.
And we want to hear from everyone,
not only just the people that fill out the form.
We also want to hear from the community as well.
Yeah, I think you have to be careful about that poll
because we don't know how many NIRs those people have.
They might have zero skin in the game.
They might have like $50 worth of NEAR. That's not quite representative. I think the real danger is any whales of that
577 million NEARs that are staked, who are quiet. One day they wake up, their APY has
been cut in half, and they dump into thin order books, and we are all screwed, like seriously.
I think we just need to be very mindful of that, that we don't provoke any sort of silent large holders to sell into thin order books with any radical changes to the APY.
any radical changes to the APY.
Yeah, thank you for bringing that up
and just going back to what Yuen said.
Yes, that's such a good idea to create a post on the forum
and to make sure that everyone can have their voice be heard.
Winning Wealth Wisdom. It's an awesome name. Just want to respond to what you
said. Yes, it's really important. And I will say that, don't want to say 100%, but you should be pretty assured that the APY will not be cut in half because that would be a lot.
I will say that we House of State has engaged with Gauntlet, which is an applied research and analytics firm.
So they do data science work and they're very well known in the
ecosystem. So they have an engagement to figure out in a very quantitative and analytical
way what the API should be set to and then also the impacts of it. And they have a way to experiment to make sure that the API will not result in whales who end up selling their near and waking up and seeing like, oh, shoot, APY now is half of what it was yesterday.
So just want to say that you can be assured that that will not happen.
Okay, that's great to hear. I was at the other call with Ilya in the VC chat just an hour ago and I think
he mentioned he'd sort of canvassed the large holders, which sounds good. I just want to
be sort of assured that he's reached every large holder because it just takes really
one. As you know, the order books in crypto are very thin
and even just 1% or 2% of the supply getting dumped
can move the price like 30%
if other tokens are any guide to how thin the books are.
And also, I do want to add in on that.
Thank you, Winningning for that info. So everything,
like once the credit episode, the reduction for the APR has been discussed, it will still
need to be voted on. It will not be like just say that, okay, here are the numbers, we'll
just lock it in and then we'll just implement it. That won't happen. There still needs to
be a voter consensus,
either through the staking or either through the validators.
I'm not quite sure how that will work yet,
but that is something that we also need to talk
as an ecosystem as a whole.
So once that's confirmed and everybody votes on whether or not
there will be an inflation reduction,
then we will also work with talking with all the large whales,
all the large VC holders to understand here is the current vote.
Please do read it carefully and then give us the feedback or vote on whether or not you agree or not agree to it.
That's why it's good that we hear that Ilya has talked with the VC from you as well.
This is new information for us in the call.
So it's good to hear that and this should
be something that we also should redo again once the proposal is out to again reach out to those
largest stakeholders as well as whales to like please take note of this please do not uh please
look through it read through it understand it and then vote on it because like we don't want to like
step on anybody's toes or like give them
like a sudden surprise and say hey uh api has been down it has been voted you missed it sorry
about that so that should be something we will also need to tackle afterwards i think as well
it might make a lot of sense to sort of maybe not try to reduce the inflation rate right away, but some sort of
five-year plan potentially, like sort of so everyone can see what's on the horizon. You would
commit to a lower inflation, but sort of within five years, something like this. So we also give
time for all of these AI agents on chain to start burning gas within five years.
So some of that could also come maybe from organic token burn by then.
That could be possible.
Yeah, I feared we'd probably get to this stage of the conversation since this is a very hot topic.
And we've probably seen this for several months now.
Whenever the topic of readjusting token inflation comes up, there's always two camps.
Both are equally right in putting their arguments.
But I think there's a lot of work to be done, as Rika was pointing out.
There has to be a lot of modeling on
whether this actually would make sense like we are talking without having a lot of this data right so
there's been concerns around are people dumping their staking rewards right now it's pretty much
anecdotal evidence like we are probably just scraping like few accounts and like extrapolating
those.
I honestly don't know whether that is the case or not.
Like,
and I'm not biased on,
on whether that's whether that is the case,
but I think like,
this is how I see this.
The working group is just doing very preliminary work on getting the ball
rolling and getting this discussion across many
stakeholders, getting feedback inputs from all of the different people, especially validators,
which I think Alan is a great point of contact since they're a very popular liquid staking
platform. So yeah, I think that there's still like a lot of work to be done.
But yeah, I was just curious. So we have this single form, which is kind of catered to
multiple stakeholders, where, as Alan mentioned, he's kind of getting it across to the validators,
getting inputs from them. You mentioned that it's also being sent out to founders
to kind of get their perspective.
And if I'm not wrong, this form has also been publicly shared out.
So pretty much everyone in the community is able to kind of share their opinions
on where they think the token inflation should be like there's even like
ideas on increasing that and like having like a vested component or whether uh or there's there's
even chatter around like the nature of a potential reduction as uh winning was kind of highlighting
like maybe we can do a gradual uh reduction which kind of spans
through spans out multiple years um yeah i the only uh thing i kind of have an opinion is we
shouldn't have like a five-year plan i think five years is an eternity in crypto but i definitely
think like whatever the outcome if there are very strong opinions,
like maybe we should have like a gradual rollout, whether that's on the upside or the downside,
I really don't care. I just think like, and this is more in a personal capacity, like we might need
to change things and see how things react. But that's just my personal inclination. But coming back onto the topic
of the working group, I'd like to ask Rika or Alan on some of the progress that's been done. So
whether there's, like, besides the forum, has there been anything else the working group has
working group has been working on and that you might be able to share with folks in the
been working on and that you might be able to share with folks in the audience?
audience.
Yeah, I actually also wanted to say something about the graduate reduction, but I saw earlier
Alan had his hand up for a while.
Alan, is there something that you wanted to say?
Yeah, I mean, I want to mention again that we need to have the clear plan of what will happen,
and that's how we can take the final decision if it is something that fits for the ecosystem or it doesn't fit.
We are right now in the process of collecting all the comments, sentiments, and evidence from the ecosystem,
comments, sentiments, and evidence from the ecosystem, but I think that we need to have
like a clear path on what will happen and how it will happen, and surely will be designed based
on the comments that we are collecting on all of these spaces and surveys, but the final plan will
give us also the final comments on how this will impact the ecosystem. That was my only comment.
on how this will impact the ecosystem.
That was my only comment.
Cool, yeah, I absolutely echo that.
To the point about the gradual reduction
and like a possible five-year plan.
So I cannot talk for a gauntlet
and they're still in the process of their engagement,
but the way that they're advocating for NEAR to go
about a reduction is in a gradual and a phased approach.
So they do modeling, they have quantitative ways to do like small phases and then small
experiments and adjust accordingly.
So I think with them, we're in good hands and they will not allow,
like, you know, something really sudden to happen.
Yeah, I think we need to be aware as well that we don't actually really have any
token sinks on NIR apart from staking.
Like the token basically doesn't burn much gas, as you know.
And I mentioned this to Ilya earlier, and he said something along the lines of, well,
A, some of the tokens could still be staked with House of Stake. Most of the APY could be preserved if we staked with House of Stake, which is one.
And B, he mentioned sort of DeFi.
But I'm a bit skeptical of DeFi being a token sink because I don't really see that the liquidity is deep enough for that, that whales can deploy their nearest there, or that even if whales would
be comfortable deploying in that size, either because of the lack of liquidity in general,
the lack of liquidity incentives for that size, or maybe sort of fear of the smart contract risk.
So I'm quite skeptical of DeFi soaking up any NIRs that do get unstaked.
And I don't know what the answer is to what other token sinks will there be
if staking in itself crossed the threshold of being from attractive
to unattractive?
Yeah, I think these are kind of very valid concerns.
And I've personally thought of them multiple times, even from comments of yours on Telegram.
multiple times, even from comments of yours on Telegram.
What I will say is that there is this school of thought,
which I've mentioned a couple of times,
where you could argue that if you have a high staking APY
for your native gas token,
it deters people to kind of participate in DeFi.
It's, again, it feels like a chicken and egg problem.
Like, will reducing the staking APY entice more people into DeFi?
Again, I'm also fairly skeptical.
I don't have enough quantitative data to back this,
but I have seen some of this play out in ETH
where after when they moved on to proof of stake from proof of work,
you did see some of those E of be deployed in DeFi.
But again, I think like we have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
But yeah, I was just curious on the status on the forum.
How many responses have you guys gathered so far?
When do you plan to run this for?
Like how long the forum is intended to be open for
and like what would be the potential next steps for it?
Yeah, I can jump in here.
So we have about 52 responses so far.
And these are responses across different types
of stakeholders from investors to community members, to project founders, and of course, to validators.
As far as the, oh, so how long we're going to keep it open?
That's a great question.
I don't think we've really talked about that.
I don't think we've really talked about that.
I'm not sure.
The House of Stake delegates,
we are having a delegate workshop at ECC this year.
So I'm thinking that after that,
we'll have some more clear timelines and dates.
But until then, clear timelines and dates.
But until then, please feel free to submit the survey
whenever you get a chance to do so. As far as the results of the survey, it's pretty interesting. So with the inflation rate, there seems to be pretty
broad consensus that the inflation rate should remain pretty low. So anywhere from two to four with the average being three. Staking APY, we had a lot of different answers, actually,
but as far as the average, the average that people responded with so far is 6.89%.
Just a reminder, the APY what people wanted for saying. And then the Treasury minting rates, people actually want that to be pretty low. So they're saying 0.47%.
So they're saying 0.47%.
And that's about where it's at right now, actually, at half of a percent.
Yeah, I think that's pretty much at par, right?
Because we have, I think currently we have like a 0.5%, so it's just about there.
That's really interesting.
So we're not like, I mean, just going by the survey,
and again, like I know there's a lot of people who are very skeptical,
and I myself like don't take polls very seriously
because as Winning kind of pointed out,
we don't know how much skin in the
game do these participants have right uh but um i think if if you fill out the form like you do
care about this thing to some extent again it's it's hard to kind of quantify how much do you care
and like in terms of how much skin in the game you have. But I maybe want to ask like next steps
in terms of like what happens after like con.
Has there been any thought put into this?
Like how would this play out?
Like in terms of follow-up discussions and next steps?
Yeah, we definitely started thinking about it it's it's
a little hard for us to know now just because we're still trying to get more answers to the survey
and at the same time gauntlet is doing their work um so our goal is to compare the results of the survey with the proposal that Gauntlet is going to have and, you know, see where the similarities and differences are and why that might be the case.
be the case. And ultimately, like, as I said, I am personally not an expert in taking, but I have a
lot of experience in governance. And so I know that it's really important to make sure that there is
consensus amongst all the different stakeholders. And so really that's what we're trying to shoot for.
I know that sounds very broad.
So we're going to have to create a roadmap with timelines and clear KPIs just to make
sure that we are held accountable to the working group, to the community, and just in general
to the house of stake.
Yeah, that's kind of great to hear. So the only thing I can probably tell people, I think this
is probably the most controversial topic I've seen around governance and house of stake for the last couple of months, because
this is a very substantial change if it takes place at the protocol level.
Yeah, I definitely listen to a lot of these concerns. And I think Rika, Alan, and everyone in the working group are making sure that all opinions are collected and they're passed on.
I think we will need more follow-ups for this, but it's nonetheless an interesting conversation starter for the time being.
Would you have anything else you'd want to share, both Alan, Rika, or Ewan?
Because, yeah, I think we've kind of covered everything we had on the agenda for today.
I don't really have anything else.
I would be interested in hearing if any of the community members have any questions,
but also you and Alan, if there's anything that you guys want to add, please go ahead.
What about...
Yeah, sorry.
Yeah, go ahead, Alan.
No, no, no, no.
Please, please.
Go ahead, you first.
Yeah.
Has the Foundation Treasury considered the impact on their own runway?
Like, don't they also have less money to spend if they cut the APYs?
Because I understand from, at least from the last transparency report two years ago,
that they still had about 300 million years. So if the APY was reduced, that also reduces their passive income from their staking and
that also reduces the foundation's runway.
Yeah, that's a really good question.
Yes, you are.
Please go ahead.
Oh, no.
For that question, I don't think we can answer it from the House of Stake itself.
It would be directly towards the foundation, since this was something that they would need to think over as well and maybe planned out.
And then they'll give the feedback to the working group and then we'll just discuss it as a whole and just plan along the way.
plan along the way.
So maybe we can do a discussion on it,
but I don't think we could give a solid or anything
concrete on that or anything related to the foundation
at the moment. YAMICHE ALCINDORI LIUMANN HONG-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU-YOU- I just wanted to mention also that there's a Treasury working group that is also part of House of Take.
And I just saw some deliverable that they're working on and they are thinking about runway.
So they are looking at what the Treasury is, what are the possible areas to allocate funding to, and then also modeling what runway there is.
So I think we should be in good hands with them.
Just kind of a question on that.
Like, would that working group, and maybe I think Ewan's on that working group,
so he's probably the best person to answer.
is probably the best person to answer.
Is that working group focused on near foundations runway
or house of stakes runway?
Or is it like general analysis on the runway
for various stakeholders in the ecosystem?
Currently, that will be only focusing on house of stakes
since once the treasury comes into the House of Stake Treasury,
then we could plan around as well as make proposals on how we see each of the different line items can be used or utilized within the ecosystem more,
either effectively or more efficiently. related to the foundation or like the new ecosystem as a whole, through like runway,
treasury or any of the current stakes they are doing at the moment, we do not have those information.
I think at the moment we're just planning on how we could plan around the House of Stakes
Treasury, make sure that once we make a proposal on like timeline budget as well as how we feel certain OKRs and metrics
will work with those budgets, and then it
will be either shared out to the community to look into,
to give feedback first, and then vote it out again.
So just want to give you guys that information.
Currently, House of Stake will just focus on House of Stake
Treasury.
They won't touch any other Treasury at the moment.
Awesome.
Yeah, I think I'm done with questions.
If anyone has any last thoughts, feel free to unmute yourself.
Or if anyone in the stage wants to come on and ask any questions regarding to what's been discussed for the last 50 or so minutes, Feel free to because we want it to be a free-flowing space.
So if anyone wants to join, please do.
If not, we can probably start wrapping up.
Yeah, whatever works.
Yeah, maybe you want to give final thoughts.
If you guys have any anything you guys want to talk about,
anything you want to share about, either through the House
of Stakes directly or to the different working groups,
please do either reach out or talk within the public group
chat we have within Telegram so that everybody
will be able to see and know what you guys think.
Please don't be shy if you guys think that there is some way you can contribute
or there is some insight you can provide that will help the House of State to move,
develop or move even faster.
It will help everybody as well as help the ecosystem itself to develop towards decentralized funding.
So I do hope everybody to please do not be shy and just reach out or just give us your feedback.
Any feedback is welcome.
Okay, I see Alan has his hand up.
Just adding extra context to what Winning Wild Wisdom is saying.
The document that I shared that is about the token supply and distribution, I think it's
worth for anyone that has interest to contribute or have interest over their tokens, to read it, to understand it, because probably that can solve some
questions, like the one that you already did, that the Runway that has the foundation is
the same as the House of Stake.
There you can see, explain how the foundation has an allocation of tokens from the Genesis allocation, and how the treasury
that is being managed by House of Stakes is an independent treasury that is being created
based on the inflation of the tokens generated on Genesis.
So that can help solve some of the questions, and I'm sure that can solve more concerns
that people initially have.
So, I mean, we will try also, I think this is something that we should see on the working group,
to make this more easy to understand for everyone because, yeah, the first time,
and I mean the first time it was like four years ago that I started reading about this tokenomics.
Four years ago that I started reading about this tokenomics, it's complex.
So there is a job to be done over there to make communication effective about tokenomics on need.
But yeah, that document explains very well how the distribution of supply is happening right now.
Awesome. I think from my end and as a closing remark, I want to address both people who are
very excited by how the poll is going and like general sentiment is around reducing
token inflation and at the same time addressing people who have concerns that this won't be a decision that will
be taken hastily. I think this is just the start. There'll be a lot of back and forth,
a lot of posts both on the forum, on the House of Stake Telegram chat. there'll be ample discussions i think we'll have a lot of
we'll hopefully have like data backing some of these claims around token sync whether it
it is a concern whether we we will be able to mitigate uh some of the near that's being unstaked
in other avenues such as d5 or not um so So I think a lot of this will evolve
and discussions will kind of mature
and we will have a more stronger opinion
kind of backed by data.
But yeah, I think as closing remarks as well,
if there's anything that's substantial around this topic,
it will be amplified as much as possible. So everyone has
visibility into what's the update with regards to token inflation, both through the near house
of stake X account, which is the host for today's spaces on the forum and on the House of Stake Telegram chat, which is public for anyone to join.
So nothing will be done hastily and everything will kind of involve inputs from as many people and as many stakeholders in the community.
in the community. So I probably want to end on that note that I wouldn't panic or get too excited
because we've said it a few times, take the poll with a pinch of salt because we don't have any
data, or at least the people who I've spoken to, they don't have enough data to kind of back
their preferences for now so thanks
everyone for joining I think this is probably the most spy we've had through
the house estate account but yeah there's there's more interesting spaces
to come so keep a watch on that and uh yeah thanks for joining and until next time bye-bye
bye guys I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love, I love,
