Thanks @ryan.rodenbaugh. I appreciate your comments and as I mentioned my post was just based on some number crunching I did myself to figure out what % of token-supply can be reduced without affecting company operation and at the same time increasing the investment value for TrueFi from a tokenomics perspective. I want to still strongly emphasize that a tokenmics model which significantly reduces or locks away the current share of Un-released tokens is absolutely essential for the longterm growth of TrueFi.
-
The current token model is definitely a legacy model, so I am glad you agree it needs retweaking to be attractive in the current market. I look forward to your comments and how you incorporate our feedback.
-
Community incentives need not be burned, I was just trying to find ways to reduce supply. A better way would be to use these based on community feedback. Also any unallocated community incentives should definitely not be reduced at all.
-
As for future team and company tokens, I commented on the SAFU post (Secure Asset Fund for Lenders (Similar to SAFU)) that if we allocated > 70% to the SAFU fund, I have no issues with these tokens being NOT BURNED, as they are still being used for insuring the current users and also locking away the TRU in a way. I was unsure of how much progress had been made from team’s end with regards to SAFU, and hence suggested to burn these instead, but I will not be opposed to using these for SAFU operations. Please keep in mind that this needs to be a significant chuck to make a dent in the SAFU fund.
Finally, I thank the team for considering the community feedback, but have to again insist that we need to bring the total token supply by a lot (atleast by 200-300 million), to make TrueFi attractive to incoming investors/users and reduce the sell pressure from newly released tokens.
I look forward to your post ryan 