This article focuses more on internal rewards, but I think we should focus more on external rewards, so that more people who have not participated in NAM shielding can participate, which may introduce more users who need to use the shielding function to use this function in the future. At the same time, increase the data. So I think the rewards should be partially rewarded to those who come in to shield for the first time, or those who complete certain tasks, mainly for dispersion.Or more users
Thank you, @Veildev, for the thorough breakdown and calculations on the reward systemâreally appreciate the insight!
This is something Iâve been meaning to bring up since Phase 3. One asset that I think holds a ton of potential is USDC. Stablecoin private transfers could see huge demand, and Iâm curious why we havenât prioritized adding USDC to the roadmap yet. Was there a specific reason it wasnât included from the start, or could we push to make it a focus for future updates?
2 Likes
Thank you very much for your reply. 
I donât have any other questions at the moment. I hope Namada continues to grow and thrive in the privacy space! 
1 Like
It is much better to give users more expectations than to give them more rewards, such as some future airdrops in the ecosystem, and those who want to participate in the airdrops can participate in staking.
This is an inflation model, and it is best to do it in a free model, such as organizing activities in conjunction with the ecosystem to attract users, and at the same time the ecosystem acquires users. The ecosystem should do it based on the expectation of future airdrops for users.
Been asking about this myself for a good while. I believe the omission is intentional, but I like you believe stables are needed for the ecosystem. Perhaps not necessarily as incentivized (though that would be ideal), but they need to be part of the canonical IBC model imo.
Appreciate the thinking behind this proposal! I think the â5% isnât that muchâ argument needs a closer look. If the asset pools are as large as expected, even a tiny premium leads to large payouts, which could disproportionately benefit whales or early movers. That introduces centralization risk, even if unintentional. More importantly, shielding for yield doesnât necessarily equal meaningful privacy adoption. It could just create a short-term farm. Iâd like to better understand how this is being designed to include a broader range of users and contributors, especially smaller participants and validators who are core to the networkâs sustainability. Iâm assuming community control over the asset diversity in the MASP in the future is one option.
3 Likes