I’m creating this topic to collect community thoughts that can be used to build a proposal that will strengthen the utility and economics of the $NS token.
I believe that Deepbook has a strong model in place with the DEEP token, and that implementing some aspects of it (in a way that makes sense for SuiNS) would strengthen the NS token and ultimately the SuiNS platform.
(1) The only currency used by Deepbook (fees, rewards, etc.) is DEEP. That gives DEEP a very strong utility and I think that SuiNS should adopt this same model with NS. The service should effectively run on its own token.
(2) This doesn’t necessarily mean that we shouldn’t give SuiNS users the option to pay in something else. But, I believe that paymens should be swapped to NS at the time that they’re collected (this could be handled internally by the payment service at the time of payment). This would also eliminate the need to incentivize payments in NS to the degree that they will be under the current pricing model.
(3) Any future rewards (staking, etc. ) should be handled in NS.
(4) A small portion of NS collected in service fees should be burned. This allows platform usage to very directly impact token value. Deepbook handles this by collecting all fees into a pool, paying all rewards from that pool, and periodically burning the excess. Further, if SuiNS is holding a substantial portion of their treasury in NS, then appreciation would largely be a very positive thing internally.
I think that closing the loop around the NS token would be a very positive thing for both SuiNS and tokenholders. Please, share your thoughts. Hopefully we can use them to put together a proposal that accomplishes this and benefits everyone.
Burning some of the $NS from revenue should be a given. Our problem is just calculating the % of revenue to burn.
And what will the remaining revenue be used for?
DEEP has no revenue sharing but still appreciates well.
Even just a tiny % burn makes NS deflationary which I think would be very well accepted. What if we start the conversation at 2% of payments collected?
Good idea, convert payments to NS will increase the value of NS (kind of buyback), but I think we should keep the discount on direct purchases in NS in order to incentivize the trade of the token.
Paying the rewards from the NS pool created is also a very good idea for me.
For the burn: I don’t know if it’s necessary, we need people with a good experience in tokenomics to decide, the supply is already low, it would be better to store the NS in the treasury for future rewards and incentives (for holding, lending, staking, voting…)
Why bother incentivizing them to do the swap if the swap is going to happen anyway?
I think everyone likes DEEP tokenomics, which do include a burn. It’s small, but enough to make it very slightly deflationary. They collect protocol fees in DEEP to a pool, pay rewards in DEEP from that pool, and then periodically burn the excess.
I think that’s a model that makes a ton of sense, but that it could be simplified in the case of SuiNS by just agreeing on a small percentage of each transaction.
The goal with the burn is simply to create deflationary pressure tie protocol usage.
To encourage trading, make volume and have visibility.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t do a burn, I’m just saying that we have to think about what it’s going to do in the long term, if the tokenomics can support it, etc. SuiNS is a project that will last for decades, so the burn must not end up harming it. We need to do calculations and projections to see in the long term what tokenomic would become, then we can choose the right % of burn
Agree, $NS holders need to receive more benefits to attract new users, not just voting rights. Buybacks and burns using revenue are practices widely adopted by other DAO platforms (almost all of them, lol)
Please share your thoughts on using the following as a basis for the proposal:
(1) All protocol fees are swapped at the time of collection to NS. We can at least temporarily maintain the discount for payment in NS, which will incentivize users to handle the swap themselves. I’m not sure this piece is necessary, but I think that removing the discount for payment in NS so soon is probably a misstep.
(2) All collected NS is added to a pool.
(3) All rewards/incentives and currently planned operating expenses will be paid from that pool.
(4) On a monthly interval, unallocated NS from that pool will be burned.
This would allow for internal flexibility to adjust rewards and burn rate, while still establishing a firm plan for NS to be slightly deflationary.
Additionally, I think it solidifies the utility of the NS token by being the core operating currency of SuiNS.
1- OK! I Agree, maintaining NS discount is good for visibility (even if usdc buys are swap in NS)
2- OK!
3- OK!
4- OK!
Maybe should add some more things to your proposal (if it’s an incoming proposal??) Thinking about staking rewards etc, but finally it can be done with another proposal…
So OK with everything
But need to create a new Proposal to vote… Who can create it? Doctor?
Yeah, I agree that staking rewards should be addressed, but part of the reason that I tried to frame this in how I did is so that we don’t all have to agree on everything at once.
This would establish a framework that leaves room to address those things independently.
I agree with the proposal to burn a percentage of fees generated as long as it’s not excessive. It needs to not be too high as the protocol needs to spend money on product development in this early stage.
However, I don’t agree with making all revenues in NS and entire treasury in NS, as this to me suggests a lack of faith in the product offering. If the product offering is strong and the use case is strong, then revenue generation will also be strong. In which case, desire and demand to hold NS will go up. This should be the goal, rather than tokenomics maneuverings that are simply designed to make price go up. I prefer to take long term value creation approach
This proposal is very good. In fact, I personally think further: 1. Domain name mint and transactions should be carried out using ns. 2. Appropriate handling fees should be charged, and the handling fee portion should be destroyed. 3. Give aeon owners a certain discount, and also give certain discounts to other domain name owners. The discount ratio can be determined based on the number of domain names, rarity, and length of ownership of the domain name owner.
Can you expand on the issue that you have with swapping all fees to NS?
I don’t see it as maneuvering at all, I see it as strengthening the foundation’s position.
If costs have to be covered in a stable or something, then swap the NS for USDC at the time of payment. Until then, maintain the reserve in NS which will appreciate along with product adoption and growth. Anything less seems like it’s effectively just hedging and trying to time the market.
