In the past two years, the consumption of Flow tokens has been very small. About 8,000 Flow tokens have been consumed to create wallet accounts, and about 1,400 Flow tokens have been consumed for gas fees. At the same time, flow tokens have undergone a lot of inflation and additional issuance. (Up to now, 131,790,851 additional tokens have been issued), and since most of the nodes are operated by Dapper labs and the Flow team, 90% of the nodes were operated by Dapper before last year, and now the number has dropped to about one-third. That is to say, most of the Flow tokens issued by inflation in the past two years have been allocated to Dapper,
I hope to destroy the rewards that Dapper has earned in the past two years, so as to reduce the total amount, boost the confidence of investors and token holders, boost the confidence of the secondary market, and also reflect Dapper’s confidence and responsibility in Flow blockchain.
I think currently, a lot of project are using credit card to purchase NFT, like NBA, NFL, Billboard,… I think these company should have an buy back program, which they use some their revenue to buy back $Flow to increase the demand.
The Fact is, the Flow ecosystem is growing but Flow don’t have much utility, => No demand => Flow price would not increase
Thanks @flowjosh for reply.
Flow ecosystem fund is a great work, But on the other hand, another cycle was created: ecosystem projects team have to sell tokens - token prices dump further - and people walks away disappointed.
In addition, the ecological fund originally held 32% of the token to support ecological development?
Flow has long been considered centralised, as Dapper runs most of its own nodes and requires permission to deploy contracts, and it would be a shot in the arm if Dapper were now willing to burn some tokens (it’s not the number that matters, it’s the attitude). And it’s also a good start about community governance.
Since the last time Coinlist’s investor tokens were unlocked, the price has been going down. We really need to change this phenomenon. DappRader should destroy some of the tokens to boost the market, and iterate the version as soon as possible, so that $FLOW can play a greater role, not only Can be used to buy and sell NFTs.
Unfortunately didn’t see any further discussion from Dapper and the FLow team. Disappointingly, some of the Flow eco-project team members (who received funding from Dapper) were very supportive of what I suggested, but they would only PM me and not speak publicly.
I think FLow is open, democratic, and will be completely decentralized in the future. hope that anyone can express your opinion openly. Meanwhile, looking forward to the further discussion from official team members.
Tokens are different from stocks. Fundamental factors drive stock prices based on a company’s earnings and profitability from producing and selling goods and services. Dapper has good business results, real users, partners, and hundreds of million dollars in revenue from the secondary market, but all the revenue and the value will go to Dapper, not $FLOW. It’s good if we invest in Dapper’s Stocks.
On the other hand, Dapper is good doesn’t mean Flow price is increasing, because Flow is not Dapper’s Stocks.
Crypto prices increase because they have a demand. In my opinion, Flow coin doesn’t have much demand.
In Inflation: we have 10M transactions per week (ATH) but if we multiply with gas fee 0.00002, so we use only 200 FLOW as transaction fee, the rest are minted around 1.2M $Flow Every week for Validator & Deligator
10k Flow for created account
NFT Project doesn’t lock any Flow token
We have a lot of quality projects like NBA, NFL, UFC, Billboard, … But they purchase with credit card and do not need to lock Flow as well
As we can see in Ethereum EIP1559, they have burn program, the more transaction, the more they burn.
So In my opinion, Because Flow fee is very cheap, so Dapper or Projects like NBA,… should have a buy-back or burn program, like use some of revenue from secondary marketplace to burn or buy back Flow,… even though just a little percent, but it can make a lot of change to Flow price
I know for example how NEAR Protocol has solved this issue.
A certain amount of $NEAR is burned for each transaction with NEAR. The more transactions you generate, the higher the probability you burn more tokens instead of issuing them. With NEAR, this magic number is around 1.5bn transactions.
Also, NFT projects, and any other project for that matter, need to reserve block space if they want to launch a project on NEAR, which leads to $NEAR being locked.
However, until we have these numbers of transactions on a daily basis on any blockchain it will take years, so we need a better solution.
Make it mandatory that projects must attract $FLOW when launching on Flow Network
A burn mechanism where $FLOW is burned when a project is launched on Flow Network.
Optimization of tokenomics, so that more $FLOW is burned per transaction
anyway, the goal is to stabilize the damaging of inflation (price decline) before flow is consumed.
Since Dapper doesn’t want to burn, here’s an alternative can be considered: Dapper buy-back 130 million Flow tokens from the secondary market within one to three months, and announced to lock for 5 years, and announced the lock-up address.
In this way, Dapper can keep their tokens while giving the secondary market more confidence
@Bluebird You noted that roughly 130 million $FLOW tokens were minted and issued to Dapper wallet(s) for node rewards.
Do you know how many of those tokens have since been sold? Are you suggesting a 130 million token buy-back because they’ve all been sold?
Or is Dapper going to hold these “forever” so not inflationary in the circulating supply? Or the 32% given as grants to community builders - if those builders create value/demand that exceeds the token amount that’s also not inflationary, right?
I’m really surprised by the lack of public communication from the teams at Flow and Dapper around these very relevant topics.
How is the community supposed to develop trust in the network?
The team says they are excited about governance FLIPs, but very little is done to increase transparency around these decisions.
I believe the measures suggested by @Bluebird here (burning or buybacks) are sensible from a community point of view, and would at least require an official public response from someone at Flow or Dapper.