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?
Hello, Chris.
So if we are having a discussion here, could you please give some clarification to your post to which I am replying.
You write that Namada token will not have any blocking and vesting periods and if I understand correctly, the entire capitalization, namely 1 billion tokens will be day 1 available, which means when phase 5 is reached they will all be in the market and the team/investors can start selling them on the first day after tge/mainnet.
Don’t you think this is weird and not serious?
Let me explain what I mean.
You tell us here about the seriousness of the Namada protocol, its construction and how important it is, you set a period of 5 phases, to test and debug all the mechanisms, so that everything will be and work OK in the mainnet.
But if all 1 billion tokens will be available on the first day of trading (for the team and the investors), then it crosses the seriousness of your product, and already looks like a regular token-memcoin.
As you know, in web3 projects enter the market usually with a small percentage in the mainnet (8-15% airdrop + ecosystem costs) and after months/Year/Years there comes unlocking of tokens from the team and investors.
And this unlocking/periods of blocking just shows what the valuation of the project will be after a while, which to some extent limits the team from pouring their entire position into the market, so that they actually do their product and not just cash out and never come back to their product.
I’m very worried that a similar thing could happen with Namada if the entire supply is made available to everyone immediately after going through all 5 phases. And I can’t imagine how the product will be priced in the market with this approach and which CEX exchanges will be able to list it. Then we will be able to see it only on osmosis at a paltry valuation and it will be a disaster, considering the path that has been traveled.
I participated in Shieleded Expedition and I’m in the top 30 and if you actually go to market with this approach, it will be ridiculous to all the teams that participated in this whole thing.
So I’d like to hear your response to that.
2 Likes
It’s disappointing that in over a week, no one from the team has taken the time to provide an answer to my question…
1 Like
Still hope to get a sensible answer from @cwgoes here on the forum or on this discord post
Discord
I’ve been in crypto for many years now and I have dozens of projects that I’ve been directly immersed in. And I know your method won’t work, so I’m trying to talk you out of it and go for the classic method of entering the market with a limited supply at the time of starting trades and then unlocking it after a while.
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.
Hi @cwgoes , thank you for responding to me here.
I hope you will take the time to study what I will outline here.
These are some points, but there are actually more reasons.
1. Marketing and top CEX.
Now in 2024:
Product = token = marketing = community.
It’s already like an axiom that the market valuation says something about a product. It’s attractive, there’s a buzz about it, and the ecosystem is being studied and is used.
A good example here would be SEI, Celestia, Dymension - these projects came out of the Cosmos ecosystem, they have an established tokenomics, with vesting and a weighted percentage in the market at start, 8-15%, which allows them to have listings on major exchanges (Binance, Bybit, OKX, etc.).
And in the absence of Namada and the lack of this approach, then we are unlikely to see this, which means that the capitalization of the product will be too small, which will not create an influx of liquidity into the protocol.
You say you are building a useful product and you are!
I’ve spent many months studying Namada. But if no one will use this product and no one will know about it because there is no mention of it, and users can buy the token only on dubious tier3 CEX (which are very often financially unsound) or only osmosis and not on binance/okx, then what is the point and how long will it live even a useful product that no one uses or knows about?
I think you know the answer to that yourself.
You do remember the boom that Namada created after the RPGF Drop was announced, and that attracted a lot of participants already to the Expedition. Which helped make it a success. And listings on large CEX will attract the community to use the protocol With mainnet!
2- Technical component.
Launching a mainet/rewarding protocol participants for providing assets.
So, expedition participants kept their servers running, it’s our choice, someone won, someone lost. I’m in the top 30. I and other winners will be the ones who will support Namada in meinet online 24 by 7, but if it will not cover the costs, because nobody uses the product and its valuation is low, then it is unlikely that it will live long on simple enthusiasm and we are now in the first third of the bull market, when we need to stock up on fat to continue to support the product, when the bear market comes, and there will definitely be all the work of validators on full enthusiasm for several years.
Rewards for providing assets. Since in the absence of vesting all tokens will be in the market. It is unlikely to achieve an APY of at least a few percent a year in $ and here again we come to the fact that no one will bring assets to Namada if they don’t work and make a profit. No users. No assets. No commissions.
3. Long-term development and Anoma.
So from your discord posts I understand that there will be an Anoma token in the future.
And for example I would like to get it or some of the users, and as it seems to me, then you can come to allocate some amount of Anoma token for NAM stakers.
But with the low price of the token and the valuation of the product, we can get a lot of inflation and if I or any of the enthusiasts decide to buy back the Nam token with their funds, it will depreciate very fast and hence the loss of funds.
So it’s unlikely that anyone will be staking Nam or some small number of participants. I’m even afraid that Namada may simply not survive by the time Anoma goes to market because it won’t be used, no matter how good and useful the product is.
So to summarize.
Good tokenomics with vestings and a weighted percentage in the market at launch (8-15%) + listings on major exchanges = influx of community and users of the product.
Full capitalization in the market + listings on dex/tier3 exchanges = lack of any participants in the product.
You can build an undoubtedly useful protocol, assemble a team for it, spend months and years to launch it. But what’s the point if no one will know about it or use it. It will lead to frustration even for the developer and the founders. That’s what I’m afraid of and don’t want to happen to Namada.
So I ask you to consider a classic market entry like SEI, Celestia or Dymension.
1 Like