Absolutely clear to me! It would be ideal to address the major changes comprehensively, and then it would be beneficial to review the Tokenomics.
2 Likes
The team probably hoped for a constructive discussion when they started the topic on tokenomics.
But in order to do so, team first had to present a range of options.
Ex1. Keep 21 million $ZEN and airdrop new tokens
Ex2. Rebrand or swap after increasing the mintage to 21 million $ZEN
etc…
Presenting a variety of options would have resulted in a discussion that would have been fruitful.
However, lack of information and ill-prepared statements led to confusion and fake news.
It was a debate that degraded the meaning of DAO Discourse.
5 Likes
New Hoirzen functions as an EVM, and the role of $ZEN will be in governance and as fees for EON. This means that the functionality of Zk will be applied to the newly introduced proof verification layer token (tentatively named $ZK).
The Zk verification layer and modular chain will become the main products of HL, and VCs are more interested in the upcoming $ZK rather than the existing $ZEN. This has been a recurring topic discussed by the team.
Ultimately, HL will manage two tokens, $ZEN and $ZK. In this situation, where will the power be concentrated? It will likely be in $ZK.
The breakthrough for $ZEN to survive lies in the demand for fees due to ecosystem expansion, but given the efforts and results of ecosystem expansion so far, it is difficult to have high expectations.
$ZEN holders may only find salvation through swapping to $ZK, but it seems that the value and expectations of $ZEN are diminishing. Perhaps, when the airdrop ends, it might face a fate similar to Omisego.
7 Likes
Some news on this: https://twitter.com/robviglione/status/1780596007115629013
What do you all think about this?
Its good to satisfied old zen holders, but i prefer 1 token strongly so i was happy with the first “idea” but i saw the rest of the community didnt. I see it as good in short time solution. But long term i think it would benefit much more with 1 token. To avoid confusion for new pople onboarding and for speculative reason imo.
Can we still get OC to the research on the 2 options so far? Can OC also include speculative narrative in the research on the 2 tokens and the options? 
2 Likes
I agree that 1 token solution would be the best but noone mentioned the ratio of dilution at all not even plus minus ratio. For me would be acceptable 2:1 for example (even 2:1 is to much maybe). I assume the ratio would have to be at least 4:1 maybe even 5:1 which is really bad from my point of view. It is like let’s decrease your wealth with the promise it will go higher in long term. No thanks. 
Anyway I hope there will be the study from OC and I am curious what options for 1 token solution would be there, if the ratio is for example 1.25:1 then why not but I doubt about it.
From my point of view the current plan makes sense and I prefere 2 tokens solution.
Technical comment about a proposed airdrop for new Horizen. Is there some guarantee the Airdrop won’t be geo blocked for USA citizens.
this would indeed be good to know for many community members
I have been holding $ZEN and running nodes since the early days of Horizen and Joined the community initially due to the 21m tokenomics and Privacy of which I am an advocate.
I understand the changes to Privacy status as this is required to grow and address regulatory issues. I am OK with any changes that NEED to be made to advance the Horizen Eco system, I think the ZK initiative is good, but what happened to Zendoo and all the expense that was put into the whole sidechain ecosystem, it feels like we have been spending on a whole lot of improvements over the years that will just get dropped and where a complete waste of time and resources, who is responsible for this?
As a long term holder and having helped secure the system with nodes and at times, mining, I would be very unhappy if the time and investment I have put into Horizen would be diluted by the proposed changes. At times when the price of ZEN was low, I had to take losses on running my Nodes, but hoping the price would increase due to the 21m supply limit kept me running. It is easy for those that are not long term holder or own very little $ZEN to want tokenomics change as this gives them a chance of increased benefit from the system at the expense of those that have been holding up the system for so long.
If a change is to be made to tokenomics it should not devalue the investment made by those who have helped secure the system for so long in favor of the newcomers.
Some will say that the new tokenomics and structure will add value to the system and you may get some short term devaluation but with increased usage of the system that will change over time, which is true and fine, but should not those who have kept the system running for years get an advantage over newcomers?
It is good to see innovation taking place and vibrant discussion here on the future of Horizen and I am happy to read and discuss any new proposals, but don’t want my investment devalued, the small rewards of 5-9% I have been getting for running nodes doesn’t compensate for this, I could have easily switch to another POS token and made a higher % on my investment but had belief in this project.
2 Likes
Hello.
A new proposition has been made meanwhile.
I suggest you to read the last ZenIP ZenIP 42405 DRAFT: Directing the Horizen Foundation to Request a Migration Proposal for $ZEN and EON to learn more about the recent news on this topic, and stay available for your questions
1 Like