The Anoma Foundation just published the Namada Community Genesis Process, Cryptoeconomic Mechanisms, and the Genesis Allocations.
This thread is dedicated to discuss the topics covered in the post.
hi @awa when balances.toml will be published?
2 Likes
I thought this was a joke. It turned out to be true.
With 1b unlocked tge the price will be much lower. It is really impossible to understand why you did such a thing. Why aren’t those not in circulation locked? why circula supply 1b
Why is full circulation necessary? Shouldn’t the reasons for all circulating tokens be explained? Have you not considered the market? Who would buy a token with 100% circulation?
That’s an interesting option)
Since we have all 1,000,000,000 NAM on TGE, I propose to expand the token’s presence across the crypto ecosystem.
- Providing pools in top chains (Ethereum, Base, Optimism, Arbitrum, Osmosis)
- Listing on multiple exchanges including Binance, Coinbase, Bybit and others.
We need to provide users with different ways to obtain NAM tokens.
2 Likes
Ok guys, this will be a little longwinded. And a little quick so asking for a little grace on any rough wordings. (wasn’t going to post it here but just on discord, was persuaded)
There have been a lot of discussion over the last few weeks and a growing sentiment in the community that “full unlock bad” and “full unlock memecoin only”. I don’t share these sentiments entirely (will expand below), but I do accept the concern over too many non-vested tokens in the hands of relatively few entities, though I think there is room for some nuance also on this.
I want to start by saying that I don’t think this is the main issue we are facing, nor even perhaps the main thing that frustrates so many. I may be wrong here, but I think the lack of an actual tokenomics blog for several months when promised “next week” has left many disillusioned as to the state of heliax’ quality and frequency of communication with the community. I share this concern. Personally, I think a main takeaway from all of this is that there NEEDS to be more frequent communication and interaction from heliax especially with the community. Knowable and especially Gavin, has stepped in and filled a void, and done so well, but there is still a sense that heliax really does not want to or care for interacting with the community. I think if this is the case, it’s a big mistake. I also think the systemic reoccurrence of severe delays in process, both regarding SE finalization, tokenomics blog, and other items, which has very little to do with mainnet readiness in terms of the namada software, but everything to do with process, points to a concerning lack of process consistency, for lack of a better term, in how anoma/namada operates. I am concerned about the impression this leaves for investors, community, and other stakeholders. And I do believe that perhaps the main issue we face atm is that the whole process has dragged on so long (for some parts understandable, others not), that the community and also potential investors are growing weary, concerned and cautious. I also think there is a lesson here for anoma in that if there are delays, communication that there is a delay, why the delay, when it can be expected, and such, is imperative to still concerns in the community. one can really get away with a lot of delays if one communicates them consistently. but this has been an issue. It also points, I am afraid, to a possible void of management in anoma. I have no doubt there are great visionaries and technologists in anoma (this is key to such an operation), but I am concerned whether business process suffers. Anoma after all is also a “business” or at least a business-like organization, in a broader sense. (replace this with non-profit if you prefer but that aspect could be discussed if accurate too)
Now, to the matter of tokenomics.
People are freaking out about a full unlock and “meme token namada”. Full unlock and 1B initial supply with ongoing increase of monetary base through minting new tokens (inflation) should not come as a surprise to anyone that has been following the discourse and statements from cwgoes and others for the past few months. This is not new. But somehow the void of communication on this has caused some to think it probably would not be like this. I personally do not have a big issue with a full unlock at start. I share some of the sentiments expressed by cwgoes and feel there is a marked lack of reflection on the part of many who claim a full unlock can only cause everything to go down the drain.
Ironically I feel those speaking the loudest of “meme coin” are bringing a meme coin mindset into this, I can almost hear echoes of “liquidity locked? contract renounced? dev based? lfg!” and then naturally people want these securities because meme coin devs can and will rug you, scam you and whatever else, and they (actual meme coin devs) usually find a way to do so even if these mechanisms are in place.
Namada is not a meme coin. Anoma is not three guys sitting in a basement creating a token. Let’s not pretend a full unlock makes it so.
Anoma is a foundation in Switzerland having raised a significant amount of capital for its operations and employing a two-figured number of employees (I believe around the 40-50s though not entirely sure), and an actually legitimate project, not some scam meme token. I think it’s unfortunate to go right to accusations of being so just out of dislike for the token model.
Now, will the current token model mean we may not see a curve that goes up and then down again in the weeks following launch? maybe. but again as I understand cwgoes and others, that’s exactly the point. And tbh their reasoning makes sense to me. Can there be some concern with the number of unlocked tokens in the hand of VC and knowable/heliax? yes. especially VC. But as some have noted, the VC/angel investors are the actual investors of anoma/namada. it’s unrealistic to expect they shouldn’t walk away with a big amount of the tokens. Should they be vested? Perhaps. Can that be changed now? I sincerely doubt it. If it can be changed atm, someone somewhere (on the investor side) has been sloppy with not securing contractual terms. I can’t imagine the big investors would let terms be changed this late. I wouldn’t to put it that way, if it was me (it’s not me, I don’t have VC assets unfortunately, or perhaps thankfully).
There are some things that need further clarification: What is Namada to Anoma? Will Anoma be a separate blockchain? What then happens to Namada? Where is liquidity and cex allocations in the tokenomics split? Is the controlling aspect from anoma/heliax/knowable concerning? and other questions that are already being put into a document. This is not an exhaustive list.
I came across this graphic btw earlier today that I will leave for you here as well: (graphic). I imagine for Namada, the insiders would look > 50%. idk if food for thought but thought I would post it just for comparison.
In summary, I am somewhat neutral on the full unlock model, but I think there are too many inflammatory messages going back and forth in the debate right now because people are stressed out about an ongoing (for a longer time) uncertainty about things. the more information can be provided the better.
I also would ask in relation to the blog which sort of is a bit relaxed on “if someone wants to use the software to”, so is it like this that the community basically starts the chain and can just edit balances.toml as they see fit? I doubt it, so I would like maybe the process to be a bit tighter and more transparent. If anoma decides start allocations it’s totally fair and expected imo, but be precise about that.
end from me. (ps you shouldn’t base any financial decisions on these loose thoughts)
5 Likes
Thanks @awa! Looking forward to the Anoma Foundation’s balances.toml proposal.
We’re discussing in real-time in this Namada community discord server, in the “hot topics” section: Discord
We’ve been synthesizing questions and concerns here (still a work-in-progress): NAM genesis balances - Namada community questions/concerns for Anoma Foundation - HackMD
2 Likes
I would like to provide a list of my problematic issues with arguments why it is important to solve this. I also want to say right away that I think about the future of the project, and not about the cost of my rewards.
1. A huge part of the tokens without locks will be transferred to Anoma backers. It is worth considering the fact that all the attracted investments mentioned in the media were made in Anoma, and not in Namada. Also, by searching for various offers, I found an offer from one small venture fund with the opportunity to invest in Anoma in 2023. It was clearly stated there that you buy the XAN token for a certain price (this is Anoma’s token, you can see this on various blogs). There was no mention of the Namada token.
Let me summarize: various funds have invested in Anoma, both large and small - venture funds (they are also called pools, where 50-200 people chip in small amounts). Let’s also take into account the fact that funds always only want to make money.
Question: Where are the guarantees that people who signed SAFT only for the Anoma token will not sell their Namada tokens? For an investor (a member of the Namada community, not only in terms of technology, but also as a long-term valuer of his assets), this looks like living in constant fear.
2. Most of the tokens will belong to members of three teams who have management roles in Namada - Anoma Foundation, Heliax, Knowable. These tokens do not have any block mechanisms.
Question: How can we talk about governance when most of the tokens, without any blocking, are held by those who created this project?
3. Any token of any serious project should be able to be easily purchased by end users. In this tokenomics, I did not see information about the allocation of allocations for liquidity for dex and cex. I can assume that you want to make some kind of analogy to the Dutch auction for fair prices - making a minimum liquid pair on the dex (let’s say Osmosis) and let the token live its life, but this will give HIGH volatility, which is the characteristics of weak projects.
Question: Is there any plan for carrying out listing procedures, where will liquidity be allocated in this case, who will carry out the listing work, who is responsible for this? (in my thoughts, this should be done by the Anoma Foundation)
4. I have concerns that the Namada project is being treated as some kind of experiment, given how communication occurs. But Anom’s project will be made according to all the canons of the crypto world. Therefore, I would like, and I think the entire community, to see the team’s serious intentions towards Namada.
Question: Do you have any experimental connection to Namada? Will you be as serious about all stages of launching Namad (mainnet, distribution, listing) as you will be for Anoma?
5. All tokens except tokens allocated for completed RPGF events do not need to be in full circulation (I’m not talking about lockups as vesting). Let’s say we have an allocation for future RPGFs, will these tokens just sit in the team’s wallets? Also tokens for development. This is absurd.
Question: Have you thought about some other mechanism for locking the allocation of tokens that will not be used at the time of tge (will not be distributed among the community)? In my thoughts there was an idea about forced staking of these tokens, parameters, etc. are being discussed.
3 Likes
Hi @awa & everyone:
-Around 33.3% of the supply seems it would be initially locked, since it will be for future RPGF rounds and research grants/similar, Awa can we consider this 33.3% as effectively locked initially?
-18.5% is for core contributors/Namada team, I think we can also assume this is mostly locked initially, or are you Awa and others planning to sell? If not planning to sell, that would be around 51.8% initial supply effectively locked
-16.1% is for the airdrop, SE, CB, etc., here we can expect some sell pressure so it is imperative to have great liquidity to absorb this sell pressure without major price impact, ie. we need high volume on Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, dYdX and others just after the launch
-32% for investors this is key, how well you know these investors, are you in touch with them Awa? Whether they plan to hold/sell could make huge difference, assuming little sell pressure here then initially 51.8% + 32%= 83.8% of supply would be effectively locked and only around 160M the actual circulating supply? But again, to absorb potential sell pressure here it is a must to have deep liquidity in the top exchanges just after launch, this is the top priority
2 Likes
Hello Pretoro,
Thank you for your insights. I think you have a deep understanding of the industry’s dynamics, but I cannot be as optimistic as you. In my opinion, a flawed tokenomics structure can lead to the failure of a project. Projects that are not desired or appreciated by the community often end in disappointment. No matter how good the technology is, what really matters is the support of the community that will use it.
If a project lacks community support, it is difficult for that project to gain value or build trust. Having a worthless token or a project that does not listen to the community can lead to a loss of trust, which hinders the project from creating hype or gaining attention. I find it hard to understand why you view these situations positively.
It is crucial for Namada to be a long-term project and to be embraced by the community. Creating a lasting and sustainable impact rather than short-term hype is a critical factor for gaining the community’s trust. Recently, we’ve observed that many projects have become insensitive to their communities, resulting in a decrease in the number of users.
With these concerns, I have tried to reach out to the team and Gavin in the last 1-2 months. I have made efforts to offer the best solutions, but I have not yet achieved tangible results. I hope that there will be better developments for Namada and the community from now on.
I believe that in the future, Namada should establish a stronger relationship with the community and consider their feedback. This approach could help the project to be built on more solid foundations.
Wishing everyone the best of luck!
Hello everyone, and here we come to tokenomics.
I am impressed with @Sahib position and his questions, but I don’t think we can get an adequate answer from the team to them.
Here on the forum. I’ve already tried to get a response from @cwgoes about tokenomics.
And anyone can read there and see that I never got an intelligible answer.
But the longer I thought about it, the more things fell into place and now I will try to explain the team’s position, which they have but unfortunately will never voice to us.
They won’t change Namada’s tokenomics under any circumstances.
There will be no vestings here, so we also won’t see listings, on any liquid CEXs. (no Binance here, haha, not even Bybit)
Probably there will be no listings anywhere at all, except osmosis, so I think you guess what the price will be.
It’s actually funny, and sad, that their top bidder for the top #1 @Daniel spot probably won’t even end up getting $250,000 for all their allocation of 5,000,000 tokens to NAM and all the work they’ve done over the years… And this is amazingly callous behavior from the team.
They pretend to be visionaries, except these visionaries are sitting around getting paid and it’s very good money and I think they will be getting even more soon.
Yeah yeah, we can all read the news:
And they don’t care that members of the Shielded Expedition participated for several months in their testnet, without adequate support from the team in a testnet that crashed all the time, where many programmers and validators stayed awake for weeks to keep the network in any stable state for several months.
They don’t care about the participants in their community builders programs, who also helped promote Namada online and at offline events, where there was also a lot of material input and manpower.
I’m not even sure if they pay their mods a salary (they’ll be surprised when after a few years of steady work they get a whole lot of nothing for their labor :)).
It’s a cynical act from the team that they are now committing before our eyes. They are not interested in serious promotion of Namada, we have seen it all for a long time and we will see it after the launch of the mainet.
So what is the purpose of doing things this way?
I think I’ve realized. Anoma Foundation doesn’t need an expensive and successful Namada.
They will launch the token this year, and the capitalization will be around a few million, but probably even less, and they will buy out ALL Namada tokens within a few years.
And after they are mature enough to launch the Anoma token, where everything will already be launched according to the cryptoworld’s precepts, as @Sahib already mentioned. So, the Anoma team will distribute % of Anoma tokens to Namada holders, i.e. themselves 
And that will be 100%. Years will pass, all these things that are happening now will be forgotten, but the end result will be this. And when Anoma releases its token in 2025 or 2026/2027, they will have winners and those who will be rewarded.
That and themselves. And the Luminara/Knowable team and a couple other third party partners. Somehow it seems like they’re aware of all this, but of course won’t show it and will assure that they’re not. I think that’s why @Gavin is trying so hard to smooth things over and why he’s trying to kind of mend the connection between the team and the community.
So what do we end up with?
That Anoma’s team has come up with a simply GRANDIOSED plan in their heads, as they believe. But refuses to reward the Namada project participants properly, so they make such a terrible launch. But when Anoma comes out in a few years, they will be on top and will try to prove to us that we could be the same if we were long-term holders. But they get unimaginable salaries right now, which they pay themselves, and right now they spit in the face of their community and give nothing. Just a hole from a donut…
4 Likes
Very good thoughts! I think even here, on the forum, it will go unnoticed. I will reach out to a few influencers on Twitter to give this issue more visibility
1 Like
Yeah, just total ignorance despite all the problems.
Did you see this post from Zach?
I think the mood of the community in the comments there, here on forum and on the discord shows what the community thinks about this and how wrong it is.
But the team doesn’t want to get in touch with us.
It’s just nonsense.
Anoma Foundation Team prefers to remain silent, even though they are so concerned about ensuring that all discussions take place on the forum, here, there is a grave silence
Hi all - thanks for the enthusiastic response here and in Discord - and thanks also for the critiques and requests for clarification, which are always welcome. I want to preface with the note that I (and the Anoma Foundation) will not be able to respond to all questions individually or immediately - there are a lot! In this response, I will cover questions raised by various folks that @Gavin has graciously summarized in this HackMD, organized under topical section headings.
Subcategory breakdowns
The first question in the HackMD (1a, 1b, 1c) asks for more detailed breakdowns of the “Early Core Contributors”, “Protocol maintenance, R&D, ecosystem, and community development”, and “Public allocations (future RPGF programs)” categories.
I will answer these in order:
- Early Core Contributors consists of allocations to individuals (mostly) and to a few organizations who have participated in many different parts of the process which brought Namada to where it is today, including design, development, testing, advice, and community support. This category includes allocations to over 200 individuals. This category does not include any organizational allocations to Heliax, Knowable, Luminara, or the Anoma Foundation - it does include allocations to individuals who are or have been members of those organizations, and also to individuals who have no association with them.
- Protocol maintenance, R&D, ecosystem, and community development includes a total of 17% of the supply, split between the Anoma Foundation (7.5%), Heliax (7.5%), and Knowable (2%).
- Public allocations (future RPGF programs) includes 16.3355%, split into categories for protocol development (5%) and general ecosystem development (11.3355%). The protocol development allocation is held by the AF. The general ecosystem development allocation is split exactly equally between the Anoma Foundation and Luminara.
The original blog post will be updated to include these details.
Why no vesting?
The first part of the second question in the HackMD (2a) asks why Namada does not have any vesting tokens, and about the relation with Anoma. Questions about vesting have also been raised in Discord and on Twitter - I think it’s the most popular question by far.
To put it directly: in my opinion, the system of vesting lockups - as it is practiced by crypto projects today - impairs the freedom of market participants, manipulates the price signal, and screws the public. In particular, I think the typical schedule of vesting lockups in recent “low float, high FDV” launches - usually a short cliff, followed by a few-year gradual unlock - specifically screws folks who join the project (and perhaps acquire some tokens) shortly after launch, who are presented with a price signal that does not reflect real market sentiment because a bunch of folks who might want to sell (e.g. investors), and who will definitely have the ability to sell in the future, do not have that ability now because of the lockups. I also think that vesting lockups - as practiced by crypto projects today - disadvantage the public in general, because in order to attempt to approximate the real market signal as a potential market participant, you must analyze exactly who might want to sell but be unable to, and this analysis is too complex and time-intensive for most public market participants to do.
I have explained my rationale in more detail here. To the best of my knowledge, this position is shared by @awa and @adrian. I do not think vesting lockups of this sort make sense for Namada, I do not think that they make sense for Anoma, and I do not think that they make sense for any crypto project today or in the future. This is not a popular position to hold these days, but it is mine.
I think it can also help to describe what a launch without vesting really looks like. Namada will have a free market launch - everyone will be able to express their preferences. If you want to sell, you can sell. If you want to buy, you can buy. If you think NAM is too expensive, then you have a wonderful opportunity to sell. If you think NAM is too cheap, then you have a wonderful opportunity to buy. Best of all, you’ll be able to do so with the confidence that the price signal is meaningful, because everyone with preferences is able to express them right here and right now.
NAM markets
The second part of the second question in the HackMD (2b) asks about providing liquidity to establish NAM markets.
This is not centrally coordinated, and I have no special information. Independent actors can make independent choices about how to participate in markets, using parts of their allocations if they so wish.
Namada & Anoma
The first two parts of the third question (3a and 3b) ask about the relationship between Namada and Anoma, and the relationship between Namada and the Anoma Foundation. I will break this down into a set of sub-questions:
What is the high-level relationship between Namada and Anoma, and Namada and the Anoma Foundation?
Namada is part of the Anoma ecosystem - and not just a part, but the critical piece of technology and the actual network that will allow users to make shielded transactions and pay freely, right now. The Anoma Foundation (and capital held by it) supports the Anoma ecosystem, including Namada.
Why has the foundation pursued both Namada and Anoma?
The foundation has pursued both Namada and Anoma in order to provide this shielded payment technology sooner rather than later, because we think it is critical to a free society and makes sense as an independent product. Payments have been the most obvious application of blockchains since Bitcoin, but payments require careful consideration of many aspects (e.g. seamless multi-asset support and data protection as a public good) that have not yet been combined together into a working product. For more details on why Namada exists and the product thesis behind it, check out this blog post.
What will the relationship between the Namada and Anoma protocols be in the future?
The Namada and Anoma protocols are cleanly abstracted (the trendy word these days is “modular”) technology stacks, which share certain basic components such as cryptographic libraries but are not tightly coupled to each other. The Namada protocol is optimized in order to provide this specific product (shielded payments) as best as possible, while the Anoma protocol - which is still a work in progress - is optimized for other, longer-term goals such as intent matching and heterogeneous trust. Heliax has finished designing and implementing the initial Namada protocol - which includes all key components to make shielded payments work as a product - but what happens to the Namada protocol in the future, including work done by Heliax or funded by the AF, will be driven by the community. We chose to cleanly abstract the protocols in order to maximize this freedom - all options are possible, it’s up to you!
Plans for future RPGF and protocol/R&D/community/ecosystem allocations
The last part of the third question (3c) asks about plans and timelines for the usage of the allocations under the “Protocol maintenance, R&D, ecosystem, and community development” and “Public allocations (future RPGF programs)”. I will split this question into two parts, one for each category.
Protocol maintenance, R&D, ecosystem, and community development
This category includes three recipients - the Anoma Foundation, Heliax, and Knowable. I cannot speak for Knowable (though I’m sure they have some exciting things planned!), so I’ll focus on the first two.
Personally, I think that there are a few critical features not yet included in the Namada software (or, frankly, any existing software, as far as I know) and a few critical wallets which should be prioritized:
- Private note retrieval with PIR and OMR, which allows clients to sync quickly and privately without a lot of network, storage, or compute resources (so e.g. this would make mobile wallets really fast).
- Easy multisignature creation and operation with FROST, which would allow shielded multisignature accounts. This requires not only the cryptographic bindings - which already exist - but more importantly, well-designed support across the product stack, so that users can easily coordinate to craft, review, sign, and broadcast transactions.
- A mobile wallet for iOS and Android which supports easy shielded multi-asset payments, shielded set rewards, and WeChat-like “scan to pay” UX.
- A desktop wallet (maybe in-browser) which supports complex payment flows with queuing, review, scheduling, and multi-stakeholder review, as required by e.g. companies to process salary or invoice payments.
However, there’s probably a lot I haven’t thought of here, and we’ve spent a while developing Namada “in the dark” without the ability to garner feedback from real users, and with the network launch this will finally become possible. The direction and prioritization of future research and development efforts coordinated and performed by the AF and Heliax will be driven by the community.
Public allocations (future RPGF programs)
This category includes two recipients - the Anoma Foundation and Luminara. I cannot speak for Luminara (though I’m sure they have some cool plans too!), so I’ll focus on the Anoma Foundation. The Anoma Foundation has a specific commitment to a shielded airdrop for ZEC holders, which I hope can happen as soon as possible - but we want to ensure that we’ve collected and addressed all feedback on the proposed protocol first. Beyond the shielded airdrop, I expect that the AF will develop programs to retroactively fund protocol, ecosystem, and community development work. Where best to focus those efforts will be determined by community input, network evolution, and coordination with other stakeholders - in particular Luminara and the network governance function itself.
Note also that - as stated in the blog post - Heliax and the AF are not eligible as recipients for any of these future RPGF programs.
Why discrete RPGF allocations?
The fourth question asks why the proposal includes discrete RPGF allocations, to be custodied by the AF and Luminara, instead of simply allocating these tokens to the on-chain PGF account.
The simple answer is: variety and diversity of funding sources in the short term. Namada is a new network, and all of the various governance structures have yet to work themselves out and demonstrate their strengths and weaknesses. No funding source or governance structure is perfect - different ones have different advantages and disadvantages - and I think a plurality of options is more likely to work out well for the future of the network than a single one.
With this proposal, at network launch, there would be three potential sources for RPGF allocations:
- Anoma Foundation (fixed amount)
- Luminara (fixed amount)
- Namada governance (unbounded amount)
We could have alternatively proposed to allocate these tokens to the on-chain PGF account, but the on-chain PGF account can mint arbitrary amounts of tokens anyways (subject to approval by network governance) - it doesn’t need an initial allocation in order to do so, and an initial allocation doesn’t give it any more power than it already has. Allocating to specific entities creates strictly more options for receiving RPGF when you contribute to Namada.
That said, the Anoma Foundation and Luminara only have fixed allocations, which will eventually be used up, so I expect that in time, the ultimate source of RPGF will be network governance itself - as it should be.
6 Likes