RFC-0006: Review and Redesign of Mina's Tokenomics post Hardfork

[lampardlamps]

this RFC requests that Mina Foundation commission a reputable research team to redesign Mina tokenomics to best incentivise protocol developments.

[es92]

Just thinking about the structure of such a report - one section that might make sense is for it to include is a review of other protocols with similar economics (block rewards, transaction fees, etc) and what parameters they have selected.

One idea for structuring the report (feedback would be great if this is the right information):

1. A review of the economic parameters / systems within Mina
2. A review of other protocols and how they have setup their token-economics
3. A recommendation of a range of parameters / different options for Mina to consider
4. A discussion how Mina might choose between different options and parameter selections for different preferences, and recommendations of particular parameter selections given different preferences.

We might want to bake into the grant some review rounds as well with opportunities for MF to organize community comments for whoever is doing the report to respond with more information.

In general I think this is good though, and supportive in general of a process for reviewing / discussing where to go with this!

[lampardlamps]

Just thinking about the structure of such a report - one section that might make sense is for it to include is a review of other protocols with similar economics (block rewards, transaction fees, etc) and what parameters they have selected.

One idea for structuring the report (feedback would be great if this is the right information):

1. A review of the economic parameters / systems within Mina
2. A review of other protocols and how they have setup their token-economics
3. A recommendation of a range of parameters / different options for Mina to consider
4. A discussion how Mina might choose between different options and parameter selections for different preferences, and recommendations of particular parameter selections given different preferences.

We might want to bake into the grant some review rounds as well with opportunities for MF to organize community comments for whoever is doing the report to respond with more information.

In general I think this is good though, and supportive in general of a process for reviewing / discussing where to go with this!

Hi Evan,
Sorry for the late response, and thanks for the thoughtful comments - and your support! I've added the recommended structuring into the RFC. I do wonder what the next step for the RFC is - will someone at MF turn this into an RFP which will start solicit the commissioning process? Is there anything else I should do please? - cc-ing @remigiusz-antczak as well. Please kindly let me know. Thanks again.

[lampardlamps]

A similar tokenomics optimisation work (on reward mechanism) was published by Gauntlet for Immutable today: https://imx.community/blog/gauntlet-analysis-optimizing-imx-reward-mechanisms

[lampardlamps]

Now that the hard fork has happened and zkApps will soon hit the mainnet, it seems inreasingly likely that most activities will take place on L2s, with Zeko or Protokit being the leading framework. How will the Mina token capture the value? We could have a prosperous ecosystem on L2, but those values will likely accrue to their own tokens, like OP or ARB on ethereum. How can we make sure that Mina as the settlement layer is not forgotten? These are questions that need to be explored in the tokenomics design.