Hey all,
I would like to express my support and contribute to R&D/tokenomics of this proposal, some opening comments here:
My suggestion: Two tokens + Roadmap with EVM (ZK-Rollups) and L1 (Sharding) + Compliance
EVM Equivalent
For approved and ongoing projects it is important to maintain a certain compatibility with Ethereum, where most developments have been created and planned.
The choices should aim to balance the Blockchain Trilemma: Security, Scalability and Decentralization.
Main types of scalability for L2:
- Side Chains
- Plasma
- Optimistic Rollups
- ZK-Rollups
⁃ Use BIT as native token
BIT currently has a design that concentrates two functions: governance and staking, but there is a tokenomics problem that does not allow both functions to operate at the same time, so BIT holders must decide if they want to earn rewards or vote and submit proposals, this decision switching is not healthy for the ecosystem.
When we increase the importance of BIT as a native token of L1, this tokenomics flaw becomes a general critical flaw, because staking native tokens are responsible for ensuring the security of the system, the basis of Game Theory present in POS/DPOS systems depends on a lot of it.
Solution:
My suggestion is that we have two tokens, a token for the governance of BitDAO and another token for the BIT Protocol (L1 BitDAO), this guarantees the governance, economic and security interests of the protocol.
We can plan a high-performance EVM that meets project requirements in the short to medium term and design a fully independent shard blockchain in the future. If possible, the EVM could be developed with zkrollups in collaboration with zkSync in which we invested $200M USD in the zkDAO proposal. In the meantime, we would do research and development to have our own blockchain for BitDAO.
Other comments:
-
My suggestion is also effective in the field of regulations, by separating the utility token from the “financial” token, we preserve the autonomy of both areas and can make more specific uses and developments for each of them.
In the Continent DAO proposal, we decided to create utility NFTs that represent the ownership of the hotspots and separate them from our governance token, so under the law both tokens are different objects. -
As @RJ mentioned, 95.89% of BIT tokens belong to the top 10 holders. In L1, this centralization will not be seen well by the industry, for comparison, Ethereum’s top 10 has approximately 24% of the total existing supply.
So if you decide to create a new token for BitDAO and make BIT the native EVM/Blockchain token, we should think of a way to improve these numbers and decentralization. I previously conclude that it is better to keep BIT as BitDAO’s governance token and a new token for L1’s native token.