This does not highlight what they want to change. Is it the Mainchain itself or is it to distribute a governance token?
The ZenIP is solely about engaging Outerlands Capital to brainstorm/propose new Tokenomics and governance for the ZEN token.
The proposals will be discussed in future ZenIPs, if we have a community consensus on this one.
I thought this content was for the ZENIP for the incentive mechanism. I oppose changing the structure of 21 million. As far as I know, there should be 51% agreement of the circulation volume to change the structure of the total issuance. Is it possible that the structure can be changed with a simple DAO vote of 1.8M voters and a majority?
If I have misunderstood anything, please correct me.
-
Changing the total issuance requires 51% consensus.
-
The transition from POW to POS has been confirmed.
3 Likes
I am very much in favor of changing from POW to POS. I am also in favor of changing the incentive mechanism.
However, it is difficult to agree to change the maximum supply.
*** Rob has talked about this before: “Changing the $ZEN supply has come up several times over the years, and I’ve always been opposed to it. I view it as one of the fundamental social contracts we have with each other in the community”
Nevertheless, if the total supply of 21 million changes, not only the trust between Horizen and holders but also all trust in Horizen is bound to be broken.
4 Likes
Outerlands is a capital established by the HL investment team.
Is the leadership of HL seeking a change in the total issuance? When we discussed the transition to POS, we decided to maintain the total issuance, as far as I remember.
The special committee consists of individuals adopted by HL, and HL holdings The ZEN that HL can use if they make an effort likely come close to 51%(This is just my speculation.).
If HL has made up its mind, wouldn’t this discussion merely be a formality?
3 Likes
What do you mean if? The vote has already passed, zen WILL switch to the New Horizen chain, that has nothing to do with changing the tokenomics…
Imagine if Blockstream floated an IP idea about changing BTC tokenomics, the market impact and holder outrage would be massive. For such a sensitive issue, there is such a carelessly extreme lack of details in this “ZenIP idea” that it makes me question the judgement of “Outerlands Capital”. People on twitter are calling it a potential exit scam or similar with the ambiguous language of changing tokenomics and governance. If you are proposing changing the 21m supply cap then the answer is no. If you are proposing something else then clarify in detail.
1 Like
Since the total supply of ETH is unlimited, I believe that changes to ETH’s tokenomics did not cause much of a problem in changing its value.
The most important thing for general holders and investors is the total supply.
1 Like
Ethereum will never go beyond 20k due to its large supply. Its value is capped.
I strongly agree with your words.
2 Likes
I agree here, I believe its always been a great value proposition for Horizen to have the scarcity of BTC while having much more utility with chains being built upon it like EON and the modular proof verification chain.
3 Likes
to be fair the people calling “exit scam” are fly by night Horizen “supporters” in the first place and already claimed to be part of a Pump and Dump group (calling $ZEN a pump and dump coin)
so if you actually examine their behaviour, they only talked about $ZEN maybe the last month or so at most (mostly bullishness,only up vibes) and now calling scam because of a topic in a DAO discussion which they likely don’t even bother to participate on?
Twitter advanced search function is very useful. you can see this one loud minority screaming FUD never even said one word about $ZEN in all of 2023 - or even ever before that.
one loud minority that has barely “supported” the project and claims to like “pump and dumps” should be largely ignored imo
as you can see from the results - they are empty
They never even talked about $ZEN until march of 2024 EVER
yes this is the discussion of and proposed idea for changes, doesn’t mean imminent changes. glad to see its sparking more activity on the forums!
I didn’t know it was a related company. I think the team will have to give us a clear answer.
I’m in favor of exploring other possibilities regarding tokenomics. I’m very interested in seeing the ideas that could come out of that study.
Even though I understand that the harsh reactions to this proposal come out of fear of a fundamental change that could potentially be detrimental to Horizen and its investors, I regret that all views and opinions aren’t expressed in a respectful, non agressive way. Communicating aggressively is always counterproductive, and I hope people behaving this way will understand that.
That being said, I think it’s important to reassure people about that study and its potental outcomes. It seems to me that part of that fear comes from the latest ZenIP vote, which was about removing the shielded pool (a big, fundamental change). That Zen IP has been processed quickly (in my opinion rightfully so, as that ZenIP was resulting from an emergency situation). But then people can imagine that other fundamental changes could be processed as quickly as the last one, including a tokenomics change. So in order for the current ZenIP to get more adhesion from community members, I think it’s very important to make people understand that any ZenIP vote regarding a change of tokenomics wouldn’t be rushed. I suggest guaranteeing a minimum duration of several weeks regarding any ZenIP vote being about changing tokenomics (whereas the shielded pool ZenIP vote lasted several days, if I’m not mistaken).
Another suggestion, is to make the costs of that study transparent. How much would Outerlands Capital charge for the study? If the Horizen (Labs) team wants community members to feel more involved in the project and the DAO (and thus the decision-making process), in my opinion we should move towards more transparency, in particular when it comes to the foundation budget and how much third parties want to charge the foundation for their services.
Finally, it’s also important to know what are Outerlands Capital’s credentials. Why should the Horizen Foundation partner with them, and not with another organization?
Seeing that the Horizen Labs team is backing them makes me think that they are competent people who may do a good job. But nonetheless it would be interesting to know their achievements and credentials.
4 Likes
100% agree with everything you said. It is spot on!
Not a fan of changing tokenomics, and it’s not clear by what was stated by Outerlands Capital here.
Who is Outerlands Capital? Why haven’t we seen an answer to that with actual information about projects they have apparently helped? It comes across as HL in disguise or by proxy. And, I say this respectfully, I know this ZenIP Idea only came out a day or two ago, but it seems like it’s the one that has caused the biggest stir with the community, and it’s also the one where I’ve seen the least amount of feedback and information from leaders of Horizen. I understand it’s only been a day or two, but the lack of response and discussion is glaring, and I find that incredibly disappointing and worrisome.
4 Likes
Dont see why so many is oppose these people studying somethin that can lead to something better for the project long term. Too much short time thinking and worry about the supply/halving. Better for the developers who is working on coding now and planning the new chain to know which direction they should take. We proably dont need supernodes so where should that reward go? Its good someone can study the differet options for us
1 Like
This doesnt make sense to me. We are already moving away from POW to POS, so the disadvantage of being POW is being removed. With that being said, Im 100% against changing the token supply and my understanding is so is HL and our founders. Nobody is stopping Outerland Capital from coming up with an idea or plan in regards to how the tokenomics could be, do it and present it to the community, but I dont support engaging or paying them to do it, its just not necessary. Something just doesnt feel right about the topic of this thread and how its proposed.
4 Likes
I haven’t posted on discourse as I usually just post in discord where there is an active flow of discussion, and I understand discourse is a more “formal” setting. With that said, I have the following to say.
-
In terms of the actual discussion of changing tokenomics, but initial reaction is no, but I’m open to listening, IF many important questions are clarified and answered. I am also aware nothing is being done now, but this proposal opens up a lot of questions.
-
Who is Outerlands Capital? They haven’t said ANYTHING about who they are. If you look them up, they only say they are the “original investment team of HL”. Go to their LinkedIn, and that’s the only thing they really have in their bio. It seems like many long term holders of Horizen have never heard of them, yet now, after years of never hearing about them, they pop up? It’s clear to me that HL is very familiar with who they are. What have they actually done in the blockchain and crypto space? Something other than saying they are the “original investment team of HL”…the only thing you can even find about them. This is a question that can’t be avoided.
-
We have seen a major de-listing, a monitoring tag added from the largest exchange, and the release of forger nodes where we have to really wait months for 1.4 to be released where your everyday crypto user can actually feel comfortable having forger nodes. Those are three areas that are more important to address than tokenomics right now. There is a clear trust and confidence issue that long term Horizen holders have right now. I don’t want to speak for every holder, but it’s clear from the discord that some of those that have been the biggest proponents of Horizen have serious concerns and worries right now. Now, having a discussion and proposal about tokenomics does nothing to alleviate those concerns. It only adds to concerns and people losing faith and trust in the project.
-
This final point is probably the most important one to me. I want to be careful with how I say this and it comes across, as it’s not personal and just an observation and opinion.
I would say as having held Horizen since 2017 and seen the times of the 51/50 attack, Zendoo, the de-listing for OKX, monitoring tag from Binance, removal of privacy, and other trying times for the project over the years that this is the one situation I would say I’ve seen the most pushback and concern over. Out of all of the situations I’ve seen, with this one being near the top from what I’ve seen, I’m honestly very surprised and disappointed with the lack of commenting and communication by leadership of Horizen. Other threads here have quick responses and multiple responses from leadership. I understand people aren’t going to be on here, discord, Twitter or any social platform 24/7. However, with the clear pushback and concerns that have been raised over the past few days, it is very disappointing to see the lack of communication and responses here. Some of these questions such as “Who is OC and their relation to HL” are questions that can likely be easily answered. Looking in the discord, you can see OG holders and supporters of Horizen raising serious concerns and worries. If the trust of them is being fractured and they are raising concerns when they often times are just as optimistic as can be, how do you think others that are newer to the project feel?
I’ve always said in the discord that I have always respected how the team responds to questions and concerns. I understand that not every question in the world can be responded too, but I really believe there should have been some real responses from leadership by now.
At the end of the day, I’m open to different ideas and suggestions, but I do think there need to be answers to many of the questions and concerns posted in here, as it seems like they are being ignored.
6 Likes