$MINomics Research Part 2: Introducing Dynamic Emission Schedules


This Forum post is intended to have a space for the Minswap community to express their thoughts on the recent article: $MINomics Research Part 2: Introducing Dynamic Emission Schedules.

Are Dynamic Emission Schedules a good idea? What are some metrics that could be used as components in a Dynamic Emission Schedule?


Dynamic emissions are great but -
how can we vote on dynamic emission rates if we do not have a clear understanding of dex revenues or growth rates relative to the risk of the current token float?

I have written other posts, displaying current emission rates/operating cost relative to projected dex revenues, however to date, all metrics are derived. Minswap open sourcing its contracts and cost is a great first step in the right direction of the peoples dex;
will the team be sharing some form of operating expenses relative to revenue streams publicly as another first going forward?

adding definitions:
operating expenses - traditional USD or country equivalent for labor, office, marketing, etc traditional.
revenue - real money in ( ada in ) - paid services for participating in launch bowl perhaps, trade fees, staking rewards of tvl, etc
growth rate example - 3000tx/month yielding $x; transactions are growing at a Month over month rate of +110%.


Profit Per Circulating Coin is effectively earnings per share

PPCC (eps) + growth rate; leaves nothing to debate - and would put to rest critics like Mark Cuban - the success of cardano will require BOTH ( promoting well managed projects S&P 100 style, but also exposing significant at risk projects w/ unsustainable burn rates )


I would also like to have more information. AnetaBTC started releasing reports lately, maybe Minswap should start doing something similar but with even more information. anetaBTC’s Quarterly Report (Q2 2022) | by anetaBTC | Jul, 2022 | Medium



thank you Sardonicus
GT is a real problem on the boards; and preventing the flow of information and general healthy discussion.


Atm I’m in favour of the 4th and 7th Emissions Schedule / Path from the Medium article:

Emissions/Trading Volume: This solves my main concern, that we may reach a good TVL but not much trading volume. So everyone is just YF’ing and prob selling their MIN straightaway. Only leads to lower MIN price and eventually phasing out of the DEX. But a way to encourage both high TVL and high Trading Volume will be a great future for the MinSwap DEX and the MIN token

Market scenarios: we will need this to cope with new and current compeitor DEXes


Great conversation so far. I am biased because i fully believe that dynamic emissions are the way forward. Most of my personal thoughts can be found in the medium article tagged in the Minswap medium article so i will not repeat them here. I look forward to hearing more from the community!

I will add that there is a small group of kfc people working on getting some good analytics to show if any dynamic emissions changes does what we expect (plus trying to analyze how the formulaic approach to emissions points is working). But this is all volunteer on top of daytime jobs, sp quite a challenge to manage

1 Like