What is Outerlands Capital ?
What are your accomplishments in tokenomic field ?
With which projects ?
This post is quite obscure to me
I have to agree here. There really haven’t been any answers to any questions that have been asked. It seems like thise questions are being avoided in hopes people forget. As someone else said. It has been days since this proposal and not one question has been answered. How is that acceptable for a project that wants to be reputable? It comes across as amateur hour. Let’s hope we see some answers. This gives the feeling that existing holders are about to get burned. It seems clear it’s international about avoiding answering people’s questions.
Its only been three days and 2 of those days were over the weekend I would at least give them the entire 7 days to address the questions.
I think it’s time for an AMA! There’s a lot of context to share and I’ve been in Hong Kong for Web3 Festival meeting with many people who are interested in what we’re doing with NH. Literally everyone I’ve met with here loves the idea of a modular proof verification chain. It’s a big idea and this community voted near unanimously on it recently, so I know you all get it.
That said, I’ve come to realize a couple of things in actually building this system and talking to half the industry about it:
- The tokenomics of a 2017 privacy coin don’t make sense for a modular blockchain in 2024. They just don’t, and they make even less sense when you realize that 2/3 of $ZEN that’ll ever exist has been mined.
- Everyone who I’ve been talking to recommends either a brand new token or a revised $ZEN with new tokenomics. Most of these people run big funds, exchanges, market makers, or are influencers with big communities. Our supporters and community size would explode if they chose to support us, and they’re not doing it with the old tokenomics.
We’ve learned a lot in these months since prototyping NH and kicking off those “what does Horizen want to be when it grows up” conversations that resulted in ZenIP-42400. Someone smart, but who came with his own haters, once said that when the facts change, so does his opinion. Facts have changed for me and so has my opinion. I strongly believe we need new tokenomics that match a modular blockchain and thus we need to redo what we have.
Here’s my take: If we want to evolve Horizen to be the first ZK modular blockchain, we change the tokenomics of $ZEN to make sense with that new purpose. Let’s stop pretending that the tokenomics that made sense in 2017 for a privacy coin (that’s already 2/3 mined) are somehow appropriate for a modular blockchain. If the community truly feels that the current tokenomics shouldn’t change, then we shouldn’t change the the ecosystem.
Now let me be even more clear: Horizen Labs will continue building the first ZK modular blockchain one way or another. We’ve been doing this on our own dime and we’re 100% convinced it’s going to be a huge success. We can contribute it to a new ecosystem that has tokenomics that make sense if this community would prefer the status quo. Personally, I prefer evolving Horizen to be relevant for today’s Web3, and I prefer dozens a new funds, new exchanges, maybe a launchpad kickoff, influencers/KOLs, market makers, and millions of new community members to join us; so I’m a big fan of NH with new tokenomics.
2 Likes
How do we get the share of the newly distributed zen if it so happens?
With larger tokenomics our investments will not reach our goals within this cycle. As it requires more volume.
We are already on shaky grounds with the current exchanges.
And what do you need a larger tokenomics for exactly,
Can a sidechain token not fulfill the required needs of NH?
The real issue here is that 21m coins in circulation makes it scarce and in higher demand than regular tokens with the billions of coins in circulation. Take ada for example it can maybe go up to 10 dollars in a euphoric pump but then retrace back to a half a dollar. I want to see Zen grow in value. Maybe not in competition with Bitcoin but with other relevant contenders such as polkadot, sol or even eth.
Saying things like this means that you’ve put some thought into it internally.
If so, if you change the tokenomics, you need to say what the exchange rate is and the total issuance volume.
And there is no explanation as to why 2/3 mined doesn’t match nh. If you want to convince people, you have to tell them the correlation between why 2/3 mined and why tokenomics needs to be changed.
1 Like
Yeah but all of the projects that are worth more than Horizen have larger token supplies. The nominal supply doesn’t matter, it’s the interaction of supply and demand that counts. The point of redoing the tokenomics would be to expand the supply so that we can allocate incentives to large new sets of stakeholders.
Details need to be worked out, and hence Outerlands posting this ZenIP Idea…so we can get that process started. Time is ticking, crypto doesn’t wait so we need to charge into this.
Note that I’m advocating this strongly as literally the person who would suffer the largest dilution, I’d just much rather own a smaller % of something massive than a big % of something that’ll be irrelevant.
Final note, this one to the comments about “you said tokenomics wouldn’t change!” I never said that $ZEN was appropriate for NH, I’ve been advocating strongly for an $EON token to plug the exact gaps in our tokenomics that make a 2017 privacy coin distribution inappropriate for a new modular blockchain that needs a ton of new stakeholders. The reason I’m changing my opinion now and arguing to change the tokenomics of $ZEN is bc pitching the idea of a new $EON token to complement $ZEN didn’t resonate with any investors or partners who’d drive usage, it flat out confused them. Two tokens??? They all want the proof verification token, not the old one! So rather than seeing $ZEN become pointless, I’m advocating we redo the tokenomics and have one single token, a new $ZEN, that solves all of our problems.
1 Like
We need a study and the point of this ZenIP was to authorize such a study so we can have a proposed set of options to choose from. While I’m convinced we need a new $ZEN token, I don’t have all the answers. I have ideas and I can share those, but I prefer to have some serious study and detailed options.
We need to be clear about Zen IP. Does it mean changing tokenomics or authorizing research to change it?
There is no reason for the conversation above, it just says, ‘After talking with people around me, I thought it would be a good idea to change tokenomics.’
I’ll try to make a longer post tomorrow when i have more time and can fully articulate my thoughts, but these are a few quick takeaways from what was just said.
-I agree that you never said tokenomics wouldnt change.
-I think it’s clear that whatever proposal may appear in the future in regards to changing tokenomics is going to be pushed through. When I say pushed through, I’m not saying without a vote, but it’s clear HL and Outerland Capital have the votes to push through whatever they want. Let’s call a spade a spade and not sugar coat it.
-You mention you’d suffer more than anyone with dilution. To me, that statement clearly shows to me that you are already acknowledging that dilution will happen. Again, that has tried to be sugar coated over the past year when talks about new tokens or tokenomics have come up, and it’s been brushed aside or presented like dilution wouldn’t happen. And, when you say you will be the person to suffer the largest dilution, it’s not clear if you’re speaking about yourself or HL. And, either way, that’s not comprable to the dilution that regular holders have as we are not a company or someone that works on the project daily. We are people that have to trust and invest in people to come up with great ideas and actually deliver. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but that’s not the same as a regular Horizen supporter being diluted. We have already seen a brutal two years with much of the market vastly outpacing Horizen, and now we’re almost assuredly going to see our holdings diluted.
-And, the final point that has not been answered by anyone is who are Outerland Capital? It is beyond clear that HL knows who they are and their current involvement. What makes them qualified when the only crypto that shows on their website is…Horizen? What makes them qualified when their claim to fame is the original investment team of a project since 2022 that has gone down significantly compared to BTC and many other cryptos over the past 2+ years? I don’t want to be cynical, but it appears to me that there is a strong likelihood that HL has been talking with OC and wanted them to just start this discussion and be the buffer for feedback and criticism when both HL and OC know they probably have the votes to push any proposal through.
1 Like
I agree with the idea of changing tokenomics because a lot of it has been mined and there is only a small amount that can be provided as incentives. I also think it is right to change tokenomics if necessary.
However, the overall exchange ratio is not discussed, and there is no information on whether changing the tokenomics and incentivizing which group will benefit the community. It is only beneficial to change it based on HL’s thoughts, and if the community does not follow suit, HL will go somewhere else. I don’t understand why they just say something coercive and don’t provide any information. Changing tokenomics is a very big deal. I think it’s right to provide more clear information.
ZEN holders don’t want to be diluted. I have a suggestion and I will not charge you anything for it. Make a new coin for the NH chain and mint 21 Billion new coins, then air drop 1000:1 to ZEN holders. Horizen mainnet and EON stay as is with no changes in tokenomicts. That will leave New Horizen with about 7 Billion New Horizen coins for the Horizen foundation to work with. With that allocated, New Horizen chain will be able to do all the things you are talking about.
1 Like
@finpunk Hi~ Rob,
Before launching New Horizen with the new tokenomics, Horizen needs funding and support from huge VCs.
Direct investment by VSs is the best scenario. It can provide a lot of stability to anxious holders.
Otherwise, many holders may misunderstand that Horizen’s ecosystem is changing its tokenomics because there is a serious problem.
Changing the core structure can be an opportunity, but it is also a big risk.
Additionally, detailed research and simple and clear explanations are needed to sufficiently persuade holders.
1 Like
Ok I’ve softened on the 21m absolutism. I am willing to consider the proposals as long as current holders are represented equitably and the costs for engagement are made clear.
3 Likes
Please explain exactly what “funding and support from huge VCs” mean? Do VC’s buy ZEN or do they hand Horizen Labs a check? Those are two very different things.
2 Likes
Do we really need to pretend that they do not have the Zen to pass the vote?
1 Like
I feel the same way. Those are two entirely different things. It’s a big difference because HL still gets work outside of working on Horizen. However, VC’s need the price to go up to reap rewards. Major distinction.
That is what i said in my long post. Let’s not act like the votes aren’t likely already there. It would just be a formality to vote if it go to that stage.
It’s good to see $ZEN’s consistent growth,
Yes. I think it’s a good thing for the whole project and community. but we still have some concerns about how to try our best to safeguard the interests of existing zen holders in the new token economics.
Well I agree with raising total $ZEN in circulation if the current $ZEN holders will be rewarded properly. For example If we are raising total $ZEN in circulation to 100M $ZEN, each $ZEN holder gets 5x their $ZEN amount getting us to total 80M $ZEN in circulation and staking $ZEN earns you rest of the 20M$. Maybe even no max cap like Ethereum but you get the picture. No damaging holders/investors without increasing their amount of $ZEN to have their % of ownership same on the total amount in circulation as it is now. I disagree with $EON tokens being replacement for $ZEN’s features and usages.
Why I would support removing max cap? Well the fees that went back to the miners, would have to be burned now. So depending on the usage of network (after initial increase of everyone’s holdings) we could achieve deflation. I’ve said for years on discord we should increase amount of tokens proportionally to everyone’s holdings. The 21M cap doesn’t suit utility coin, and since we are no longer privacy but utility it makes sense to change.
What if the holders arent rewarded properly? Well in that case from a holders viewpoint it makes no sense to hold, and should just sell now, and maybe buy later when this change is implemented and new prices form based on new tokenomics.
If this happens then HL wants to reward and incentivize new developers on the EON network, but doesn’t want to use their own funds (which have been given to them by the community). Because lets remember that distribution increase from 10% to 20% of all blocks was voted by community to help HL with tough times after market dump and the funding of the development was in question.
Risk involved are following:
Exchanges further delisting $ZEN
Confusion among holders and their selling run
Potentially getting marked as security (as atm I am sure we aren’t)
4 Likes