Progressive let out

Could MinSwap propose a progressive let out of token based on demand and fill up progressively the pool with ADA from the sale of that token automatically in a closed “pool”.

It could be a real distribution based on offer demand and not of staked qty or ada wealth ?

Maybe something like that

1 Like

Hi @GabMazz, apologies but I’m struggling to follow what you mean here. (My lack of understanding, not your fault)

Would you be able to break this down into simpler terms for me (/other readers)?

Also, what benefit does the change you are proposing give the protocol / users.

Thanks :fish:


I am wondering if English is not OP’s first language and they are using a translator. It seems as if “deflationary” was translated to “let out” (perhaps?).

I think what they are referring to is a “deflationary token” whereby the token’s supply decreases over time (often due to burning). As supply decreases, demand and value could technically increase. You could think of this as a situation where a team buys back a certain percentage of a token from the market and then sends it to a burn wallet.

If I had to guess, it sounds like OP is wondering if Minswap could mint a deflationary token that they sell and hold ADA as some type of reserve. And, that the distribution of the token is designed to be whale-proof where even ADA minnows could get a fair distribution tokens.

What I don’t understand is what the deflationary token would be used for and why anyone would want to buy it (ie. what is its value)?


I have a couple comments related to this.

  1. While deflationary tokenomics (burning tokens to decrease supply) could increase the price per token (lower supply versus fixed demand should drive price up), I honestly believe this is a short term fix. In my opinion, demand really drives the price of a token. We should be seriously considering proposals that will drive demand of MIN… I have some ideas that I will propose once they are more thought out.

  2. If deflationary tokenomics is something the community decided was the right move, I would push for this to be done way later in the lifecycle of Minswap. Minswap is just getting started! There are much better uses of Treasury capital than buying back MIN to burn.

  3. Minswap should be in the inflationary stage for a while first, trying to distribute MIN to as wide of an audience as possible.

  4. I would rather (eventually) see Treasury used as a distribution (maybe stablecoin or ADA?) versus a buyback. Similar to the way mature Companies issue dividends, versus buying back there stock. You could do both, but it would be really great to see Minswap pass revenue to long term MIN holders… :wink:

1 Like

Of course,

By let out I mean a independent wallet that owns token 1, the price is set. But each buy ADA goes directly in pool no middle person. (for trust). To permit a “release” of that token based on buying. Just a “let out” do get them in circulation and fill up the pool controlled by no one or MinSwap…

Is this better ?

No, Deflationary tokens nerver worked (the end is that there will be no more for the last keeper) Ha, BSC, ETH don’t work better to just fill up contract and do as already exists

Thats my opinion after all

In my opinion I would prefer to see emissions schedule set in stone and then the community can decide in what pools get emissions (what LPs are whitelisted), and what percentage of daily emissions each pool gets. And that can be voted on and changed. Maybe weekly… sounds a lot like veMIN to me :wink: