Totally depends on community, as all this phase has to be activated via on chain governance proposal
personally i think Phase 1 shouldn’t start unless we’re confident we can move quickly through to Phase 5
yeah, Celestia team has knocked everything out of the park. but tech-wise, fwiw, Celestia is standard (battle-tested) Cosmos SDK and Namada is totally new
2 Likes
Thanks, @Gavin! Just a couple more questions:
- When will Namada’s tokenomics be published? Right before TGE?
- What about the RPGF Drop, since it’s likely not all users claimed tokens, will there be any updated information on how the recount will be done? (Obvious question, as you have exactly the same token distribution style as Celestia)
Fully agree with this, while Namada uses IBC and CometBFT it is built from scratch on rust and totally new tech, that’s why the intense incentivized testnet was required before the mainnet launch, while for Celestia and other Cosmos SDK based chains it is very different since as mentioned it is already battle-tested with the standard Cosmos SDK
I agree with you! If, once Phase 1 is launched, the timeline to reach Phase 5 is disproportionate, the community would not view it favorably.
I agree that Namada’s technology is new and comes with a certain level of complexity. However, a poor introduction of Namada from both a user of the chain and a speculative standpoint (for those awaiting the token) would tarnish the project’s reputation.
It is crucial, in my opinion, that this introduction be made understandable for everyone! For example, an introduction similar to Celestia’s would be ideal.
Furthermore, from my perspective, differentiating the launch of the Mainnet and the introduction of the token to the market is also a mistake. Announcing an airdrop and then launching the Mainnet four months later, followed by introducing the token to the market one month after that, would have a detrimental impact on the project.
Keeping this in mind, a technologically revolutionary project like Namada that fails to adapt to the norms of Web3 cannot thrive.
Well spotted! This is exactly what I intended to convey.
@Gavin @cwgoes @awa @adrian rewards for the shielded expedition will be carried out via vesting period or directly made available to user on genesis block?
When will tokenomics be made available to public?
As I’m fully aware mainnet is at the edge
Regards
2 Likes
During last Zoom call, I heard there’s a forum topic up for discussion about a couple of issues:
-
Does it strike anyone else that the rewards in the Shielded Expedition are too heavily skewed towards the top three? Handing out 11.2M tokens just for six ranks (including potentially professional team players) seems like a lot. That’s about 1% of the Total Supply! Only a small group actually participated in SE, excluding any Sybils of course, but Adrian seems to be painting a different picture.
-
Dragging things out → negative vibes. The community can clearly see what you’re doing as you head towards the main net. Your phase schedule (from 1 to 5) sounds cool and technically impressive, sure, but think about it. You announce “Mainnet” along with other updates, pulling in community interest towards Namada. Everyone remembers claiming their tokens in the RPGF, but then they see the announcement to wait for Phase 5 – that’s definitely going to scatter focus and cool off the hype. Marketing-wise, “Mainnet” is a big deal, but we could seriously lose that buzz with all this waiting.
Peace.
1 Like
just deleting the duplicate, @0xDave
For the first point, I initially had the same reaction as you. However, I believe it’s more of a labeling issue. It’s more of a hackathon aimed at solving complex problems or introducing new products to Namada rather than a test favoring novice users. In this sense, the distribution is somewhat more relevant even though it’s challenging to grasp. Will highly rewarded individuals come to build on Namada?
For the second point, you are correct.
cwgoes - discord: “Our priority is not to make the NAM token transferable/tradeable as fast as possible - in fact”
You’re not quite hitting on all the key points, let’s get down to brass tacks. Investors and funds are pushing for Namada to hit the market ASAP, so your technical mainnet launch without unlock transfers will allow funds and investors from Phase 1 to start accumulating their tokens from the mainnet date onwards. Yes, investors’ tokens don’t have a cliff, but they do have a vesting period. So, by the time of listings, they’ll already have tokens in hand. And the community, you’re treating them like fools (hence tying their hands, attributing it to a technically crucial part of the launch, in the form of 5 phases)
Just FYI, the community holds significant power, especially when a project hits the exchange, you might just get swept up in a wave of FUD (Starknet, Ether fi, Renzo for example)
I’d like to clarify a few points here:
- No tokens on Namada have a vesting period.
- We do not make technical readiness decisions due to pressure from any external parties, including market participants of any sort, and no one has attempted to pressure us into making any decisions in this case. Technical readiness relates purely to whether we think the software is ready to perform the functions which it is designed to perform correctly.
- As mentioned previously, how fast the phases progress is up to community governance.
If course, all phases will proceed quickly because the community will always vote ‘YES’ for each proposal from phase to phase (it’s clearly to all). However, the speed will depend technically only on the Namada team. If the speed stretches for months (approximately like Shielded Expedition), it will be a major flop (obviously)
1 Like
Hi,
Why is this feature there? Will it be available only for phase 5?
They won’t listen to you. From the outset they have said that decisions are taken in consultation with the community, but this is not the case. I get the impression that there are only 3 people behind the project. What’s the $58 million for? Recruiting incompetents?
Almost 7 months after the announcement of the airdrop, there’s still nothing. What amateurism.
@ahaunz Thanks for your engagement here. Can you help me understand what you personally plan to do, and why you’re worried about the lack of vesting? My personal goal with Namada is to build a usable product that provides practical data protection to users of many different assets in the multichain ecosystem. Do you think that the lack of vesting makes this goal more difficult to achieve? If so, why? Or if you have a different goal - what is your goal? I think given such a mutual understanding it would be easier for us to see where our disagreement might lie.
@C-Fly I want to be clear: personal insults are not welcome in this venue. By all means, fervently disagree with me or anyone - but keep your comments civil. I will happily respond to a question or critique if you articulate one.
I think that we share the goals of communicating Namada to potential users, making it easy to enter the community, ensuring that validators can cover their operational costs, and creating a sustainable system that supports Namada (and later, perhaps, integration with Anoma) in the long term. Am I right (do we share all those goals)?
I also agree that several recent launches, such as the ones you mention, have pursued what I will call a “low-float, high FDV” strategy, where only a small portion of supply is unlocked at network start. Honestly, I find this trend concerning. If we understand the price signal as simply the clearing point between supply and demand for an asset, the value of that signal to the market as a whole depends on the supply and demand sides having freedom to express their preferences (e.g. sell if they want to sell, and buy if they want to buy). Vesting/lockups prevent one side of that market (the supply side) from expressing their preferences (selling, if they want to sell), and thus make the signal quality potentially much worse. This may provide some temporary benefit in “market cap ranking” or such metrics for an individual project, but it makes the overall market quality worse because the price signals carry less information.
In any case, the vesting term will eventually expire, and the supply side will be able to sell if they want to. Personally, I would be hesitant to hold an asset or participate in a network where many holders of that asset might want to sell (and exit), but are unable to - it seems risky, since the current signals available to me (e.g. price) might be very distorted, and their values might change substantially in the future. I think this would apply especially to participants such as validators whose income (staking rewards) and costs (hardware operation) are likely denominated in different assets (NAM and USD, respectively) and thus predicting whether or not such an operation would be sustainable is dependent on accurate price signals. It may not be the case, for example, that Namada can support the costs of hundreds of validator operators - but far better for them to learn that now, than set up a whole operational setup on the basis of a distorted price signal and have much trouble in the future when that signal is corrected.
5 Likes
Is it decided already the % of the supply for the Heliax team, Anoma Foundation, etc.? We know the % for the Shielded Expedition winners, the RPGF drop, but is it decided already for the rest of the supply? I assume the supply allocated to Heliax, Anoma Foundation or for incentives would be like ‘vesting’ since these parties won’t be selling any NAM?
Also, some projects like Lava have a total supply of 1 billion tokens and instead of creating incentivizes for RPC providers, validators, etc. from inflation they allocated a % of the total supply for these incentivizes. Would it be like this in Namada, that a % of the initial 1 billion NAM will be allocated for incentives, or all incentives will come from inflation? Thanks
@cwgoes NAM futures trading at $3 for months with over $1M daily volume in XT exchange for example, with public info about no vesting for NAM at launch. Is it because traders are following this high FDV path (any project with VC money will do that, this is the play book), and market is not very rational especially in crypto regarding the no vesting of NAM?
1 Like
I have to agree with @cwgoes here. I’ve seen these types of arguments be made in other projects before, but ultimately they have resulted in slow bleed that gradually drained the project. If people want to sell, let them sell while there is volume to absorb it, and let them leave quick so there is no slow drain. A functional market is depending, as cw rightly states, on the participants being free to execute their intended actions. The only situation where vesting could make sense, is one where team members / developers would be incentivized, however this also is not unproblematic and I strongly favor a non-vesting approach for the longterm health of the token. If a project is sound we don’t need to think too much in marketing / short-term strategies. The market will adjust value accordingly. Tentatively
2 Likes
namada可以扩展到arb zk op上吗？我觉得可以跟他们合作下