Namada's Positive Sum Economics Blog Post Discussion

This thread is for the discussion of Namada's positive sum economics

All positive and constructive feedback welcomed!


It’s hard to understand everything for the average user, but it’s very fun! ) Good luck with development, and high marks from the crypto community!

1 Like

now everyone is busy with meme coins, so it’s not up to technology)

Hey Bengt,

Another good article :clap: :clap:I found it much more accessible than the ‘pick three’ article, so glad to have something a little easier for me to engage with.

There are a couple things i’d love to throw out for discussion:

  1. About users and validators being in contention (esp. over fees) - to me this depends on if validators are playing a short or long term game. Users trade low fees for better security, validators trade high fees for steady, active user base. If they are both focused long term, they are more aligned than opposed.

Signals for this are pretty visible when things are mis-aligned. High fees, long Q times, low tx volume etc.

  1. PGF distribution is important to bring new users, but even more important to attract ppl to build on Namada.

If you don’t have people building on Namada, you have a beautifully designed, very secure giant warehouse. It’s not until an artisanal deli, and pleather poncho stand, and an arcade setup shop in the warehouse that people flock to it as a weekend market.

  1. To me, the hardest obstacle to overcome is one you addressed early on - getting people onboard with diverting funds to public goods.Without proper education and visibility on what new goods bring to them, people will just default to "i’d rather have the money’ than access to something they may or may not benefit from.

Education in this area will serve the purpose of moving Namada public goods from intangible and abstract, to tangible and defined.

  1. last thing is my least leading question of all - are there privacy-set rewards besides just better privacy?

appreciate your efforts :v:


agree! much :heart: for relatable writing

@almostFitz regarding:

  1. a) i imagine that tx fees will be essentially meaningless for the foreseeable future (
    b) i imagine that chain revenue won’t be based on network operating costs (gas), rather a value-capture redesign that’s proportional to the market value of what Namada provides
    c) guessing that there will probably be market discovery, rather then tensions between stakers and fees
    d) regarding validators, i think that we shouldn’t conflate validators with stakers–they are very different! as Bengt noted in his article

  2. yes! PGF should have a gravitational force to pull in new contributors, ideally high quality, mission- and culturally-aligned mindshare that we can retain :slight_smile:

  3. Namada’s PGF experiment is a huge opportunity to be a self-determined chain that can fund itself and while remaining cohesive (and not descend into political chaos)

  4. can you expand on your question?

sure. About 3/4’s of the way down, just after defining the ways to attract new users he talks about the shielded-set and privacy set.

“if more assets are brought into the shielded set from existing users, then although the shielded-set rewards may decrease, the privacy-set is increased, ensuring a win-win in one way or another.”

What are the wins from an increased privacy set?

Hey @almostFitz , thanks for the feedback and great questions!

The wins of an increased privacy set is simply better privacy guarantees. Less likelihood of chainalysis or similar being able to deanonymise your activities. The reason we provide shielded-set rewards are to incentivise the size of the shielded pool to tend towards the “desired size”. See more on Privacy as a Public Good .