New ZenIP Idea: New Horizen Token and Governance

I completely disagree with changing the tokenomics of Zen it would dilute the value invested and the potential risk of getting back invested is at risk if it should fail.
We do not have the volume to support a large tokenomics like ada or sol etc.


Changing from POW to POS is not what this ZENIP is about.

1 Like
  1. I agree with the idea. I think only Bitcoin can sustain pow. As I said, this is because miners must sell tokens to maintain mining. Bitcoin is also experiencing this situation, and it is difficult for other pow tokens to survive. I think
  2. I think it would be a good idea to divert a certain portion of the percentage that would go to miners due to POS conversion to marketing or network development.
    However, increasing the amount of team rewards by increasing the issuance amount is foolish math that rewards 10 $10 pieces with 20 $5 pieces.
    And, as an example of inflation token Ethereum, it is true that Ethereum’s burn mechanism shows deflation, but other inflation tokens do not show token deflation due to burn, even in networks with many users.
    Later, when the number of users in horizen increases enough, the network fee soars, and the burn mechanism appears to show deflationary characteristics, it is not too late to lift the issuance limit.
  3. Do you know how absurd it is to transfer all remaining issuance to the team after POS conversion?

And POS conversion has already been discussed by NH. Read NH’s Zen IP.

I dont see it this way… you will know the study results once they put it to vote

"Any of the proposed changes to the $ZEN tokenomics structure would be presented to the community in a future ZenIP for a vote."

This is not a good way to allow the community to digest this.

1 Like

what way would you prefer?

I see a lot of knee jerk reactions, and very little in the way of suggestions on what would be a better option

1 Like

A better option would be that OC present the proposal in discourse instead of asking for money to make a proposal. OC approach is totally backwards.

1 Like

1: What I mean is to give the remaining tokens to the team or ecosystem before the POS, not after the POS. There is a fundamental difference, and currently almost all new projects are like this: before releasing the main chain, the project team locks in a large share, leaving only 20% of the total token volume for circulation in the market. Giving the remaining tokens to the Horizen team or ecosystem before POS can lock in this token in advance for development and ecosystem purposes. I don’t think this is a foolish decision.

2:In my opinion, there is only one criterion for the success of New Horizon’s token strategy, which is whether the team and ecosystem can obtain more funds.

3: As for Ethereum, my original intention was to use it as an important reference because using mature market mechanisms can significantly reduce prices, ensure safety, and reduce explanation costs. The deflation strategy in the code can be manually modified, which is a minor issue.

4: Lastly, I would like to add that it is not necessary to hire Outlands Capital as discussed in this Zenip, as there are a large number of mature and available token solutions in the market. Choosing a solution that has been tested over time is sufficient.

To be clear, Outerlands is not asking for money. Just for the Horizen Foundation to engage them to study the topic.

They are following the process outlined in the governance docs page Proposal Phases | Horizen Documentation

This is step 1…ZenIP idea.


Nothing is being voted on now. This is an idea for a ZenIP for them to develop a proposal for a new token.

If this idea proceeds to a formal ZenIP, that ZenIP would be for the Horizen Foundation to engage Outerlands.

A second ZenIP & vote in the future would be required to actually adopt any proposed changes.


Taking Ethereum’s mature market mechanism as an example, why does the foundation want to own most of the stock? It seems that the foundation owns almost all of the shares before or after pos, but what is the importance of that timing?
I don’t think it is a mature market mechanism for the foundation to own most of the stock. I agree that the foundation must have money to pay for development and promotion, but as you said, if the foundation owns all the stock in the extreme, the horizen network is the foundation’s property. Is it blockchain?
I think it is right to adjust the ratio of the portion that is deducted from the shares distributed to miners to the foundation’s research funds when POS is established.

Rob & Rolf
Hi guys, I’ve heard there might be a forthcoming change in the Tokenomics of $ZEN. I hope I’m mistaken. The only necessary change, in my opinion, should be the fair redistribution of the 60% previously allocated to PoW among PoS participants (Delegators, Validators, and Forgers). There’s absolutely no need to alter the core tokenomics of Horizen. Bittensor, for example, manages this with 21 million tokens on Substrate, incorporating Miners, Validators, and Delegators, plus a Halving every four years and recycling of tokens. If they can make it work, so can we. But please, let’s not modify the fundamental structure of our supply.


There is no need to change the tokenomics for that. Makes absolute no sense, ZEN is dividable into Million like Bitcoin and Sats. Look How scalable Bitcoin or Bittensor is.

1 Like

Perhaps it was my improper expression that led to your misunderstanding (I don’t speak English, I first wrote in Chinese and then translated it into English using software, and there may be translation errors during this process).

Having more funds for the team does not necessarily mean more voting rights. For example, 20% belongs to the foundation, and the remaining 40% belongs to ecological incentive funds. This funds will belong to the project parties in the ecology in the future, rather than being used for team voting. Let’s assume a scenario that is likely to happen soon: assuming that NH’s code has been completed and Mainnet has been released. At this point, if we need to collaborate deeply with Polygon, we can pay them incentive funds to have their team integrate NH into the Polygon SDK. In this way, all applications built on Polygon zkevm will default to using NH’s services. (This assumption is based on a collaboration case between Google and Apple: Although Google ranks first in the search field, it still chooses to pay a large amount of money to Apple every year in exchange for Apple’s native browser defaulting to using Google’s services.)

To achieve this goal, the Horizen team can release a new Zenip that calls upon funds from the ecological incentive fund pool. During the voting process, the Horizen team will not have additional voting rights as they do not directly own the tokens in the ecological incentive fund pool. If the proposal is approved, the funds in the fund pool will be allocated to the Polygon SDK for integrating NH. During this process, Horizen gained more development and incentive funds, but did not have more voting rights.

Through this approach, Horizen has more funds, but they are not directly used for voting. In fact, as long as you observe the new cases on the market, almost all of them adopt this model. There are many benefits to this model, in addition to solving funding problems, it can also lock in a large number of tokens in advance, thereby significantly reducing the circulation of tokens in the market. Therefore, the price of tokens will continue to remain stable at the ideal level, thereby providing the foundation with a more stable and abundant fund pool.

1 Like

Just curious, what is the future of the Horizen token as it exists today and how does it support where the New Horizen initiative is going?

You are holding onto something with very minuscule utility today whereas if ZEN evolves with the New Horizen chain, then users can spend it for proof verification, increasing demand

1 Like

I have to jump here, and talk on my behalf only. It was stated that ZEN tokenomics wouldn’t change with NH even on a POS chain. It was assured to the community.

Did it change?

The tokenomics today and the current supply should be enough if it’s just because of the expected rise of utility


I see alot of discussion here talking about supply, dilution, that ZEN shouldn’t be changing because of halving, and only doing so under certain “market” conditions. Concern for these reasons will very much limit our success and potential as its selfishly focused on individual ownership. This community should be making decisions on whats best for the network!

Secondly I also see many times that ZEN tokenomics shouldnt change, as if its some sacrilege to do so. Ethereum changed its tokenomics when it moved to POS, this isn’t something new. There are many advantages to doing so if done correctly.


I completely agree that we need to create a funding pool.
However, what I am saying is that when moving to pos, it must be adjusted with foundation funds within the proportion corresponding to the miner volume. It makes no sense to attribute all remaining mining volume to the foundation as you said above.
You mentioned above a system in which 20% of the funds are distributed and the foundation holds the rest. This is possible for new projects in the very early stages of the network. In situations where mining has already been done, such as horizen, the remaining mining volume is transferred to the foundation. I don’t think it makes sense to attribute it.
I strongly agree with the fact that the foundation needs development funds, and I think we need to discuss the amount of miners when converting to POS.

I don’t think tokenomic is absolute or blasphemous. It can be changed if necessary, but I would like to say that it is not right now.
The reason why Ethereum can change its token model is because Ethereum has so many users that it can deflate tokens with the burn model, so it doesn’t matter if it changes, but horizen doesn’t.
Later, if enough users gather, it is not too late to make changes after discussion.

I support the study and look forward to the outcome being presented and voted on in the future.

I see misunderstanding that changes are imminent. this was presented as an idea to explore options as the technology is evolving and to better optimize incentives.


I don’t think that the community is selfish. And most of the concerns are not answered right now.

From what I see, it’s just that the needs to change the tokenomics are not understood, and the hurry for this as well. The community needs to be reassured and ask for more details.

The idea phase of the ZenIP is supposed to answer that.