i think 250 validators are ok. for the rest of everything i think team knows what they do so im all ok with all 
2 Likes
About the circulating supply issue that seems to trouble many:
The reason why people keep requesting a tokenomics blog post (which was promised a while back), and which is more or less defined as a chart displaying the distribution of the token, ie how much goes to which parties etc, is that without it, it’s impossible to even start thinking about how many tokens will be in circulation. Information like how many tokens will be retained by the foundation, how many tokens will be put up as liquidity, given to team, given to community, sold to investors, etc, is fundamental to doing any sort of reasonable analysis of “where do the tokens go”, and of course ultimately speculating on any economic value (yes I know, but…)
Regarding circulation, I’m trying to find a precise definition of circulating supply, but end up concluding it’s a somewhat loosely defined term, but for the purposes of this topic, I guess what people want to know is will there be any lockup periods, vesting etc for big holders. (I don’t personally see any issue with all tokens being unlocked)
However all of this not being published with any concrete info except for @cwgoes comments in various chats and settings, ultimately creates uncertainty and confusion, and having a concisely communicated chart / post about “this is how the token distributions will be” (in same style as for instance launch phases) will serve to alleviate some of this uncertainty. It should also include whether there will be any portions locked away such as allocations to liquidity that will be locked, team /foundation tokens that will be locked etc. I feel also people are forgetting this is an inflationary protocol which basically is designed to print new money to pay for public goods rather than take some reserved portion of existing supply. (PS I’m happy to help if needed with forming a post like mentioned which includes all economically relevant information on token distribution and mechanics)
5 Likes
Just wanted to note here that we hear the request for a tokenomics (allocations) blog post, and we’re working on this (specifically @awa, I believe). Final decisions on parameters can definitely wait until the publication of that post (and time for discussion & consensus-building). We’re also working on a post about the mainnet software release that details our completed and ongoing testing, auditing, and QA efforts.
1 Like
The number of validators on network update, restart or voting - should not be any problem if these validators are properly managed and properly incentivized !
Even with 1000 validators, it is easy to restart the network in 8-12 hours .
Who does not know look at the blockchain Solana , the planned target is 10,000 validators !!! Now at 1500 validators , it does not take more than 10 hours to restart .
Another thing is to limit validators in order to increase some more profit from the network .
Decentralization and a more open network were and will be the criteria for the success of the network, no one will not want to enter the network in which there are all sorts of restrictions on recruitment, on the minimum rate, or the form of application to validators.
It is thanks to new validators and the development of new projects and directions Solana continues to grow and develop.
Isn’t that what we want for Namada? For Namada to be successful, popular and responsive to new users !
The criterion of 255 validators is great, in the future I would consider increasing it to 500
Thank you Luminara for these details and your work for the community…
4 Likes
Thanks Chris, looking forward to this blogpost. However, I understand that the blogpost cannot be completed until some final allocations like bounties for Outstanding Shielded Expedition contributions are announced? This is the forum post about the nominations for the bounties: https://forum.namada.net/t/nominations-outstanding-shielded-expedition-submissions-contributions
Why can’t it? The tokenomics don’t need to describe the allocation for every address. The allocation for the SE is known—3% and that is sufficient for the tokenomics.
1 Like
Agree. (this post is now > 20 chars)
1 Like
You are not well informed. The bounties for outstanding contributions of the SE are not part of the 3%, the 3% is only for the winners of the SE, the bounties is something extra and outside of the SE. Therefore, yes, the allocations blogpost cannot be completed until the allocations for the different bounties described in the forum post linked above are confirmed and announced
This category can also be determined in advance, for example, 0.2%, and then this allocation can be distributed to addresses that qualify for this reward.
The team should know in advance how many tokens they are willing to allocate from the total supply for bounty rewards.
The issue is, we are still waiting for the announcement and information about the % to be allocated for all the SE bounties for outstanding contributions, we still don’t know this information. So unless the Namada team plans to include it in the allocations blogpost directly and share the information there, the allocations blogpost cannot yet be completed without the % allocation decided for all the bounties for the SE.
How then could the team promise to publish a blog on tokenomics a month ago, if, as it turns out, they still have many unknowns? This is the main problem of this project, there is no NAMADA team! There are many different organizations working on their parts of the project on an outsourced basis, which is why there is no synchronization within the project. With this approach, no technology can save the project.
I’m afraid to imagine what awaits us when the project launches. There will be no marketing, no agreements with centralized exchanges, and the community will have to add liquidity to decentralized exchanges themselves.
1 Like
Hey, hey. Glad to be here. Hope I’m not late to the party.
Here are my 5 cents regarding the post above. 1st of all - please enforce black mode in settings, haha. Its not working properly =)
As per experience, most proposed params will be adjusted (a good thing) if needed as the network progresses. So I don’t see any issues there. I would like to bring up the question of voting periods.
I have repeatedly been an advocate to stop making a speed dating class out of governance. As of today on chain governance is done by real humans. Humans have simply no capacity for short voting periods.
1 cannot make a weighted decision in 7-21 days. Considering the amount of people on-chain, of course. The question here is what’s the goal? If the goal is to maximize speed - yes. If the goal is to actually activate real governance, then those periods should be IMO extended to 3-4-5 and even *10 times longer in some cases.
Of course, that would mean a breakdown of categories in voting. As technical, props need speed. When political props need months. The rush into making it as everywhere doesn’t make sense imo.
I also disagree on proposing a lower amount of vals to start with (as per some of the comments).
3 Likes
It is recommended to lower the proposal amount to 2,000, so that more proposals can be accepted and the project can develop better!
I think the most important thing at the moment is to speed up the mainnet and reduce the number of validators to speed up the mainnet work. The enthusiasm of the crypto market is declining. If the project is released at the lowest point, it will not be very successful.
hey Sergey! it’s been a while 
good to see you here
i also want slow governance, and my preference is for most of this slow governance to take place off-chain (rough consensus) to have legitimacy before being ratified with an on-chain vote
i intend to start a dedicated forum topic to chat about Namada governance processes, maybe this could inform on-chain voting periods
1 Like
I guess that’s how it’ll work out in the end.
imo rewarding and punishing governance participation encourages participants to use scripts to automatically vote
targeting 40% staking of the token supply means:
- when below 40%, the staking emissions increase toward the maximum
- as we approach the target, the rate of increase in emissions slows
- at the target, emissions rate stays the same
- above the target, emissions rate decreases (the farther above the target, the faster it decreases) toward 0
1 Like
hi, and thanks for such thoughtful feedback!
0 staking inflation just means we will have to use a governance proposal to turn it on, proposed plan is to do that in Phase 2
10k NAM minimum is for the total delegated to the validator. so i can create a validator with any amount, eg. 0.1 NAM. then if i have a few delegations that add up to 11k, the protocol can consider my validator for the active set
returning to the active set from jailing is limited to the “pipeline length,” unfortunately. i’d prefer the return to the active set be much shorter as well, if not zero. it’s just not possible (yet) with how Namada’s PoS has been implemented
Thanks. Really happy to be participating at Namada. Glad to see you here also Gavin, been a long time indeed!
About governance. I dont know if you can recall the first ever hub gov call? There was a lot mentioned there. Ideas that have never been implemented or tried over 5 years.
For example, 1 of them is the idea of governance from down up and not vice versa. Anyways. If you do start that forum, please please please let me know. I would love to participate. Will save the ideas for there =)
1 Like