Learn & Earn - Pundi X & Function X

My main objective is to make sure this project (in which we - some friends and myself - invested 5% of our fundings, and almost 25% of my free time) is persistent.

Currently, I do not have enough technical feedback from the team (Zac, David, etc.) to understand what their intentions in the future are.

When I say “the team owns more than 70% of the tokens”, I mean the foundation itself, and the multiple funds. I’ve been claiming for more transparency about it for a while but didn’t really get a clear answer.
CSP and EGF are still used as if they were the same, but they’re not. I don’t really care which one we use for Kronos, but it was written it was an EGF effort, so I would assume they would be coming from the EGF ; however, the funds were coming from the CSP.

The project won’t takeoff as long as this will not be clarified. Or else, it will be just like some other coins, bull then crash… And when I see its potential, it’s driving me crazy at times…



I think there are good points mentioned here, we acknowledge the concerns from the community. There are a few points to clarify and discuss, and first of all, thanks to @FrenchXCore for pointing it out.
The concerns and discussion are important for us (both Foundation and community) to keep going forward and protect the decentralization of the project.

Please find my personal thoughts below:

  1. Regarding to the EGF and CSP
  • When we started to design the tokenomics back in 2018, the fundamental is clear. Both EGF and CSP belong to the community, not the foundation. As stated on Feb All Hands Meeting, there was an error in the code, and Community Spend Pool is listed together with EGF.
    This is the reason why the proposal withdrawal pool came from CSP. But again, both belong to the community and will be utilized to fund the project initiatives from the community. Governance proposals are required to utilize those funds.

  • I suggest we can have an open discussion to separate these two and also clarify the utilizations of EGF and CSP.
    As an example, what are the criterias to allow projects to utilize funds from EGF and CSP? I think once it is clear, we can have a better understanding about this and it will be beneficial for FX in the future, since we are currently still at an early stage. With the upcoming EVM and developments, we are expecting more developers to come to FX and this will be a crucial point.

  1. Regarding the 70% of tokens owned by Foundation.
    This is incorrect. As we all know, 20% of the FX supply generated on TGE. 65% of supply is allocated for Public (NPXS/NPXSXEM swap), 20% for EGF (which is belong to community), and the rest of 15% for Engineering + Product & Marketing.

I hope it clarifies.


Ecosystem Genesis Fund (EGF)

  • EGF can be applied by other projects so we leave this untouched till a project applies for funding
  • The first few projects that apply is extremely important - has to be beneficial to FX ecosystem

It has to be very strict because the current price of FX haven’t explode yet so funds are considered very limited so the team should decide which project is most beneficial and actually require funding without getting influenced by the community.

Community Spent Pool (CSP)

  • The team can use these funds to “approach” projects they want to collab/partner with
  • EGF is for projects to apply for funding while CSP is for the team to make the first step

With this, the team can scan current projects in the market and if they see a project that fit the FX ecosystem, the team can make the first step to approach and use the fund to collab/partner with them, including funding them to build on FX network.

To the community:

So far, from what I’ve seen, the community is very eager, maybe too eager, they say YES to almost every project that applies without thinking straight.

I hope the community can sit back and try to think from a business point of view. The first few projects that goes live once EVM is implemented cannot fail if we want to catch the attention of VCs/AIs.

So please do not accept every project that applies just because you are eager for something to happen. There is a reason why the passing rate for funding is less than 5%.


This explains a lot. Thanks @indra.

@SCENE as the funds are currently being staked (at 30% APY), it would dramatically increase the percentage yearly which @FrenchXCore correctly pointed out to be an issue that needs to be addressed. 20% seems to be a sweet point that the foundation should aim at maintaining.

As for the EGF, I really do want to see full control handed to committee members from the foundation. Just like Uniswap and everyone else does. No voting would be required to disburse those funds and the committee’s decision would be final. Maybe, community members can nominate 1-2 members every quarter to represent the community (through voting on the forum).

This would streamline development process and we would see innovations happening at a greater pace.

With regards to CSP, it can follow the current voting process that is in place. So, from foundation they get 10% vote support and they would have to reach 40% quorum. Maybe down the line, it could be developed to be more like how Solana Ecosystem works (see Ecosystem | Solana: Build crypto apps that scale). Its transparent and progressive.

So, we have two systems for any project in place. If a project gets rejected by EGF and the project owners are confident that it is a great product, they can just go for the CSP next. I hope the EGF funds would set the highest standard when choosing projects, i.e. a lot gets rejected and only the highest quality passes. If the quarterly quota is reached, projects would be rejected as well. And confident teams that gets rejected could reapply for CSP funds to get the funding.

This could ensure that the ecosystem has a centralized as well as decentralized process in place for better decision making. i.e. promising projects get the funds quickly, confident projects wait in line.

Seems great.

Yeah, i agree that the EGF should have very high standards and very strict entry. Because i’ve seen a lot of great protocols that didn’t even need funding.

So for those that apply for funding, they should either have a very good technical background, reputation, track record or if they don’t have any of that but their project looks really top-notched, they can definitely go for it.

And good idea that if it is rejected by EGF, they can go through the CSP process. An early ecosystem definitely needs to be centralized during its early stages to make sure it has a solid foundation so once it becomes decentralized, it can be self-sustainable.

1 Like

Hi @indra (and everyone else) !

Thanks a lot for your answers.
Here is some insight I gathered, which I’m using as our analysis of the project… updated as of today’s post.
It is very detailed, so, for readers-in-a-hurry, don’t hesitate to jump to the conclusions…

  1. Regarding EGF and CSP
  • CSP is directly related to blockchain rules, voting on proposals and if a proposal passes both criteria of minimum participation (40%) and YES (50%), the proposal will collect the amount requested.

  • EGF is related to an FX address managed by the foundation, and is not linked directly to proposals (can’t be per blockchain rules). This means the foundation (controlling the EGF private key) can directly send the $FX to the proposer. Rules have now been set-up in the EGF guidelines, but EGF is still “privately”-controlled (private key). If we were to consider that the EGF is directly controlled by the voting power, then the EGF fundings should be donated fully to the CSP.

  1. Regarding the voting power (tokens) controlled by the foundation, here is a detailed analysis of blockchain that kinda give more insight as well: please refer to this post (Team FX addresses ?)

As you can see, I included the EGF ont the team side because only the team centrally controls the funds in there, not the community (at least, not in a decentralized manner).
I wouldn’t have if the EGF funds were sent back in the CSP which require community voting before being sent to the requestor (whether it’s the team or anyone else).
I also wouldn’t mind seeing the EGF in control of the team if there was strong traceability of the funds used in the EGF. But I’ll come back to that later on…
Now, let’s come back to the funds affected during TGE.

  1. Ecosystem Genesis Fund (“EGF”)

    We can see that multiple addresses benefitted from the EGF between june 2020 and may 2021 :

[…updated 14/APR/2022 : 2nd part of EGF not described…]
So, from the original EGF fund, endowed with 75.7M $FX at TGE:

  • Almost 10M $FX were used without any control of the community : that’s why I consider it is not “community’s”.
  • Part of this fund was used for NPXS conversion (only the team could do that) when this address should have been used for that.
  • Did this operation lead to a burn of NPXS (and thus PUNDIX) ?
  • Part of it is used to delegate to validators (team and public).
  • A very small part of it was used without details.
  • Delegation rewards are being collected and have stayed within use of EGF-FX01 and EGF-FX02.

Conclusion #1 : IMHO, if the details are not public, the fund is not public. I sincerely do not have any problem with the team controlling the EGF, but it should be considered as “team’s funding” then, not community’s.
Transferring them in the CSP (except for FXDM which proposal was voted YES) would send a strong signal about decentralization of the project, although it may not be used anymore for arbitrary delegation to validators, but, at the same time, it would lower the “circulating supply” and increase fairly all validator’s voting power.


  1. Product and marketing (“PM”)

    The whole 18.9M $FX (TGE 5%) funding was transferred back into (Engineering ETH adress)[Address 0xd3e327c4867b0934d3204aa9050321339718d80f | Etherscan] : Tx on January 20th, 2020

    Conclusion #2 : Absolutely no issue with that since it is team’s money to improve the project. But it would be great to have transparency about how funding is being used as most projects do. Refer to para 3.

  2. Engineering (“E”) - now Product and Marketing & Engineering (“PME”)

    • Endowed with 56,8M $FX (TGE 10%+5%)issued from TGE : [PME-ETH01] (Token Transfer | Etherscan)
    • 2.5k $FX used on August 19th, 2019 Tx
    • 0.9M $FX used on Sept 2019, Dec 2020 and June 2021 Tx1, Tx2 and Tx3
    • 55.9M $FX transferred on June 2021 Tx, of which :
      • 30M $FX sent to PME-FX01
        • $FX are mainly used to delegate to team and public validators.
        • Here, my worry is I don’t see any expense at all.
      • 25.9M $FX sent to PME-FX02, of which:
        • 1.12M $FX transferred to this FxCore wallet on April 5th, 2022, used to delegate to BlindGotchi
        • Other $FX are mainly used to delegate to team and public validators.
        • I don’t see any expense at all neither.

    Conclusion #3 : Only 1.5% expense found in 3 years for product & marketing and engineering. No details.

  3. Extra bonus task (EBT)

    • Endowed with 18.9M $FX (TGE 5%) in March 2019
    • 15.1M $FX transferred in May 2019 to EBT-ETH01 then transferred in May 2021 to EBT-ETH02 then transferred to EBT-ETH03
      • First staked (405k $FX rewards), then :
      • Exclusively controlled by the team and never used for extra bonus tasks for NPXS and NPXSXEM users : thus, this should be considered as team’s funding as well.
      • $FX mainly used to delegate to team and public validators.

    Conclusion #4 : The Extra Bonus Task was not distributed to public and is in direct control of the team.

  4. Public (NPXS/NPXSXEM) conversion (PCV)

  • Endowed with 170.4M $FX (TGE 45%) in March 2019 (from TGE)

  • 2.8M $FX transferred directly to XWallet for swap [Tx] (Ethereum Transaction Hash (Txhash) Details | Etherscan)

    • see XWallet : 9.57M $FX haven’t been converted so far
  • 45.4M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH01 : Tx

    • then transferred to PCV-ETH011 : Tx
    • 5.00M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH011a : Tx
    • 6.61M $FX transferred to Uniswap FX contract PCV-ETH011b : Tx
      • which purpose ? liquidity pool ?
    • 15.0M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH011c : Tx
      • then transferred to PCV-FX08 : Tx
        • 10k $FX used by the team to submit proposal #5 : Tx
        • 10k $FX used by the team to submit proposal #4 : Tx
        • 1k $FX used by the team to submit proposal #1 : Tx
    • 7.00M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH011d : Tx
    • 10.0M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH011e : Tx
      • then transferred 4.04M $FX transferred to PCV-FX10 : Tx
      • then transferred 5.96M $FX transferred to PCV-FX11 : Tx
    • 1.67M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH011f : Tx
    • not used for conversion
    • mainly used to delegate to team and public validators.
    • fully controlled by the team
  • 45.4M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH02 : Tx

  • 45.4M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH03 : Tx

    • 26.0M $FX transferred to XWallet
      • see XWallet : 9.57M $FX haven’t been converted so far
    • 19.3M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH05 : Tx1, Tx2 and Tx3
      • see below
  • 31.2M $FX transferred to PCV-ETH05 : Tx

    • added 19.3M $FX from PCV-ETH03
    • total of 50.5M $FX
    • 49.56M $FX transferred to XWallet

    Conclusion #5 : 96.36M $FX were transferred to XWallet for conversion purposes - 9.57M $FX were not converted). 65.17M $FX were transferred directly to team addresses without any conversion. Team addresses are used to delegate to public and team validators.

  1. Public FX Staking (FXS)

The project started in 2019:

  • EGF (TGE 20% - 75.7M $FX) detailed use is not really known, neither accounted for, and is in full control of the team. Part of it was used for NPXS conversion.
  • PME (TGE 15% - 56.8M $FX) funding only used 1.5% of total allocated funding. At this rate, 100 years would be needed to spend it all, not even considering what’s left (and constantly increasing) in the CSP !
  • EBT (TGE 5%) funding, which was supposed to be allocated to public users but 18.9M $FX (5% of TGE) are in control of team wallets.
  • PCV (TGE 45%) funding was supposed to be used for NPXS conversion only but 30.8M $FX (8.1% of TGE) are in control of team wallets.
  • FXS (TGE 15%) funding was supposed to be used for initial FX staking but 14.4M $FX (3.8% of TGE) are in control of team wallets.

This makes for a total minimum of 196.6M $FX (51.9% of TGE) in control of team wallets, not accounting for individual team member wallets.
If we ignore EGF and PME, this accounts for 64.1M $FX (16.9% of TGE) which should have never landed in team’s wallets.
[…updated 14/APR/2022 : 2nd part of EBT forgotten…]
We could also wonder why EBT, PCV and FXS reassigned funds would be used to provide rewards AND commission fees to team wallets, thus at the expense of community validators.
The good side of it is that those $FX were never used for anything else than staking and providing voting power to public and team validators.

My humble recommendations for a cleaner project:

  • Action 01: Deposit all unassigned EGF funding into CSP and provide full transparency towards any action led using the already-assigned EGF funds (past and future), in order to not consider this EGF as team’s.
  • Action 02: Accelerate & fund private & community developments, and make all projects public (FxWallet, FxExplorer, etc.) to allow for community-driven developments and bounties.
  • Action 03: Burn or airdrop the EBT funds and delegation rewards to current non-team delegators. A snapshot could easily be made for that. That would allow to not consider the EBT as team’s.
  • Action 04: Burn the unconverted PCV funds and delegation rewards. That would allow to not consider these funds as team’s.
  • Action 05: Burn the unstaked/unrewarded $FX from FXS

Why those recommendations ?

  1. Donating EGF into the CSP, and burning $FX tokens which are not supposed to be in team’s wallets, would :
    a- increase non-team voting power of each validator (esp. community’s)
    b- increase the use cases for CSP proposals and strongly increase decentralization
    c- create value on the token.
    d- lead the team to own a “smart” share of the contract’s tokens, and lead smart investors to come in.
  2. Airdropping long-standing delegators would thank them for staying around.
  3. Publishing source code and animating a dev community would accelerate integration in the whole ecosystem.

The list of team-controlled FX addresses is the following :

  • fx1pgmjd400qfkh6t2hu7gnme47wdj6adwwa2wkam
  • fx1wv2el7g92raz5jcv4fhsjvdcxl3hyqdd59repg
  • fx1lzjus804ufar37qulrwk5xva6f9h3p8wz47hs3
  • fx1g7d9ftp6xns5gfsk56j9khpzg2fz7g39nz8pny
  • fx1ftzv705fvyrfmqvnpjhjr0xh56c5jg980q0gul
  • fx1avpsgdwt74p6x9h29a432hjfczgcs5x7jwg4v5
  • fx1zq8l0qwfflptlnxxy0hn2syhr2upxqxd605ej5
  • fx17utygnz3dkuppck3462alzu7lss4z5tzlftx88
  • fx1nrph63zcfvm9t8lyp30p6c7fdvxwcxljt5j0z7
  • fx17wkl2qsukr8u0km3q48eetwzgcaxclgyvr6h67
  • fx1xx335mtdj3me7cs6sttedzufsqrrh6czll4s7k
  • fx1d0n60ana8u0sxs7gwn94mzu2xrtssfrlgqs8mv
  • fx18z0q0m4y6678wv66e4rzpcrjkcldfjz4m5w8wd
  • fx15xtp30u054ndnf833jrq4kz4wpvn95zsh9399f
  • fx1wwvxyfr6u2jpp2zmcqjs3ett9npl90per52uve
  • fx17uw98zmyv7q9cf4s9z3lumms6ctxtguyan44s9
  • fx12shesxtysrm4k82aa2mptl3ltws00akp8qlczv
  • fx1u8503d8hnmy806slfy9e48e7qs5335qm6nqzkc
  • fx1qthctpdlamudc6v8z47k9c4w8a5nwczcvmzud8
  • fx1rfmxx9cjq847x399k9aaajcqm8gdyc7ac82d37
  • fx1kt07kgqhps0hngfdxrfmvu2q2f5gez69vjf7fy
  • fx1qlaawfv2k2f283fxhyh5rwtwlusuzke4r07wt5
  • fx12vfqycy4g2sulwupzv59mmly9pltnh9z4qq6xs
  • fx1xv7xue38z22z02zc83mt42xh6zkmezsms2szau
  • fx17hkmdwrfq5f23903308pjrut7g99ue45vqmgux
  • fx16xnahksm0646kxu56zsspwq93ydapjwq2uzkuh
  • fx1zhp0eprcf59muyxchf4ux8gj9tmt39e7kzhm5z
  • fx1u7xfmfctxnfqv4ssp3q8q059578kllea7r362m
  • fx123ly93l9q0rsth709fryygxane2w23ynyftvm2
  • fx1ecf7tjc0p8lstpc6v0z8878py6krcdh3pyrdsk
  • fx16xmfu2t3pgx58a6erq8ssscn0rt2cjy5emcg77
  • fx1je0uncutnc8wpg5s2uth97t5sfkw83h4dnz2ar
  • fx13mjuh378z8yd4038eqlt5ef0z3wm8rp6xv2pxv
  • fx1uunshfpqhrek0af5u5q54qrfu5g33sc5ce05kx
  • fx1xveyp5x8795803czs0d3hgg6jt4d26k7gvqan9
  • fx1xg82dz9zl87mvr7z8vdgwwzhk8xw6725823p00
  • fx14lvghsxxs209pgpnja3fxcd0me2rvrk76me634
  • fx1uksxj5udt26qwtustg0v7p46x96pz4altu8rnu
  • fx1k3td70ns55pgnv8ukx9vafge083dv03eds2k44
  • fx16p2uyfvepc28hqkjv8vz5nku4rqme2gzjj6trd
  • fx1c63r7xh2kjaxd38r4qx5rq384gda3gcc22n49y
  • fx19ssv5t0mu7sy6ws98j7tc0rdp2ktlwq53tpe54
  • fx1r30q2gq740pjr7fsrtwvk6sjyu47g8urytl6a2
  • fx10p0e74j5uvpcafargagls2mwdkxtqqgs4rdzhn
  • fx16vyuc6cah9f3vrwtct6qfgc5lke63qkcc8zj6p
  • fx1prtqfq3pq55petdcqy9wrjapmuk5n9kvznaj4w
  • fx133ka8zgdn8emu02u623pq04gvhsl5uaufgzzue
  • fx1z5atvygcwpn49e9cx7l4rjjxv6js7a34c0334q
  • fx1j59we8wnp72sna8fjdchpkf0s62m0q9va5yv03
  • fx19ukzjkag6n4lqgejfu33046qc036rw76thgsqv
  • fx1mtsq7ta90r3xj35q5sq3tcudelkyhzlh8dufzp
  • fx1aymjyggdcme9vlhqg45hmx4fsr97vnm0kquray
    […updated 14/APR/2022 : forgot 2nd part of EBT as well as 2nd part of EGF…]

Thanks for reading it thru… and please have constructive comments from this post.
I almost spent the day writing it.



Great work as always. I just went through some of the transactions and its mindblowing. This definitely needs to be explained.

We can certainly overlook EGF and transfers between wallet addresses as most of the issues related to governance have only recently started being addressed. I think this is a good time for the team to reorganize and put everything into perspective.

I am really worried about “60.6M $FX (16% of TGE) which should have never landed in team’s wallets.” That’s 1/8 current Total Supply. Those delegating would have received higher APY without them. Should these coins even have existed? What do you do about them?

Waiting for reply from the team.

1 Like

@FrenchXCore great work! I agree with most of your recommendations.

My suggestions are:

  1. Unused TGE should not be staked by team, because it is decreasing APY for public delegators (although it increases overall bonded %, still it should not be used for this purpose)
  2. I agree with transferring unsused portions of buckets to CSP OR team can control it, but with better transparency
  3. Rather than burning unused FX, i recommend they get used for direct marketing of this project (desperately needed) and may be some AirDrop to reward old supporters/attract new ones (onboarding new ones is more important)

As mentioned earlier, the leftover/unplanned FX needs to be put to use right away! It’s not adding any value to the project by being staked and earning rewards. This is stealing from reward pool of FX delegators.

I think the team staking it, is fine because this will mean that they will have more funds to do collaborations or partnership with other network in the future. The team built this company from the ground so i can guarantee that they want the best for Function X and have the best interest for it.

They did clarify before that the unused funds of pre-governance staking will be used for R&D. For the other leftovers, i’m not sure but most likely the same too, like X Wallet mining back in 2019.

Maybe the team can clarify.

I do not see any problem with them staking it as it increases the fund for future partnerships. I think the team is currently waiting for EVM to be implemented before doing mass collaboration. We shall see.

No doubt team has best interest for the project. But staking that amount reduces the rewards for legit delegators.

If they want more funds for collaboration, than the focus should on increasing the dollar value of FX. $ 0.5 FX means $30.3 Million of funds. Increase the value to $1 to double the funds or $10 to x20 the development funds. But the team has mentioned many times that focusing on increasing FX value is not their priority. So delegating just to increase development funds doesn’t make sense.

PS: rewards earned on these funds are unaccounted for, which is a bad practice. We trust the team but for outside observers this makes a legit project look bad.


If i am not wrong, when FX was created, there was an article that showed that they will stake all tokens generated. So going by that, even if there were unused coins, they are still to be staked regardless.

The concept paper - Function X: Coin structure, use of funds, governance and proposed roadmap | by Function X Foundation | Function X | Medium

All tokens are to be increased in tandem with inflation, so they have to stake it in order not to get diluted by inflation. It makes no sense to not stake it.

For example:
They hold 10%, if they do not stake, it will be lesser than 10% as inflation eats it away. By staking the tokens, they maintain that 10% peg.

All tokens, including their holdings are supposed to be staked as shown above, to be increased together with inflation in order not to get diluted. Whether used or unused, it is supposed to be staked.

And the reason it is unused is because so many people didn’t participate in so many activities. So the leftover can be used for R&D or upcoming partnerships.

Things may look slow for now but wait till EVM is out… Maybe then the team will start to expand rapidly since nothing can be build now. We shall see.

I would like to add also that:

Currently, the staked ratio is 69%. That means 31% is getting diluted every second. Technically, we are earning 31% more right now than the actual plan.

Those 31% tokens that are not staked will slowly get diluted and lose its percentage, becoming <31% overtime, since we are eating its share. We (69%)

I feel that the word “decentralized” is always being overused.

Even other networks like Avax, Terra and Polygon are all centralized. They control where the funds go to because they dont just fund any project “just because they want to accelerate things”. That is no way to do business, that is bad business actually.

There is no company in the world that can be decentralized from the start.

In order to reach decentralization, the company has to build from bottom up with the tokens they generated. And at the moment, nothing can be build yet until EVM is implemented.

Decentralization comes after the funds is totally depleted. Funds are used to support projects that are innovative and/or not seen anywhere yet. Not just random projects looking for funding.

Once the funds are used and if the ecosystem is self-sustainable without team intervention, then it becomes decentralized.

The timeline given was 15 year period - We are only at year 1.

Moving forward, in order not to have any misunderstandings, it would be best if the team let the community know whenever they decide to shift any tokens anywhere, just like Terra - Full transparency is needed.

I don’t mind them using the tokens for R&D, marketing or for any developments as long as the community is in the know.


Some pretty serious discussion happening. All of you have some very good points.

I would add that:

We are supportive but this would look bad to potential newcomers. Its better to address the issue now then wait for the problem to explode suddenly. It can bring a lot of negative PR. If it is dealt with now, it would certainly be regarded as community’s decision rather than a forced one.

  1. Do not burn the tokens
    As it will be an internal ecosystem removal, it can negatively impact the market capitalization of Function X and we would slide down the rankings even further (>300). We are still the top 2%. This would be bad for the investors ROI overall.

  2. Allocate the coins
    I don’t mind the team keeping it for collaboration and marketing or whatever is needed but it must be accounted for.

–Reallocate them to existing departments such as Marketing/R&D or create new ones such as:
—Function X Centralized Marketing (FXCM) and allocate funds there for quick marketing push. Desperately need in my view. This time use it. Set a budget that needs to be utilized.
–Publish what each wallet holds and belongs to which department for transparency purposes.

–Airdrop to long time delegators or send to CSP, the rewards that were earned through staking.

–Delegate them to public validators to increase their authority and therefore aid decentralization.

What happened in the past, lets turn the page over it. Where we can lead it to matters the most in my humble opinion. As governance related matters is still being worked on, the reason for the existence of these coins should be clearly defined.

1 Like

I disagree with your inflation theory. The purpose of those funds is to add value to the ecosystem, not build wealth. As for dilution, they have already accounted for it by allocating a good sum of development funds to be released in the next 15 years.

If team members are delegating their personal stash, that’s perfectly fine. But pool funds should not be earning delegation rewards. Unless these funds get back into the CSP, but there is no clarity on this from the team.

The chart shows that the funds are supposed to increase with inflation. You can see from the chart that shows that each category increase with inflation meaning from the start, it is supposed to be staked.

Because it is impossible for the whole 20% to be used within 1 year when the space is still evolving. And when the blockchain space is still evolving, it makes sense to keep the peg and not get diluted so the funds can continue funding innovative projects as years goes by.

Can you imagine the scenario when, let’s say few years later, the whole blockchain space evolved into something that is totally different from now and there is not enough funds left because it has been slowly depleting by funding projects in the first few years.

I guess can only wait till team clarify. I don’t mind them using it but full transparency is needed on how they utilize the funds to avoid misunderstandings.

That table shows new coins being minted every year. These are not rewards from delegation. Infrastructure Service Provider column shows coins available for distribution to delegators.

Also, if you look at the increment column, overall less coins will be minted every year. Similar to bitcoin.

In a nutshell, by delegating pool funds, team is taking coins from infrastructure column and transferring them to developer column (if they confirm the rewards will be used for development). So it is going against the concept paper.

If you calculate, 60 million is more than 15% of the total staked coins. So out of the 110 million dedicated to Infrastructure Service Provider for Year 1, team has transferred over 15 million tokens to developer column (given they confirm they plan to use these for development).

If it is as @cop4200 pointed out. This is very concerning. The concept paper is absolute in my opinion (unless a consensus was reached) and this would just mess everything up down the road. What about the numbers on the table posted by @SCENE? Is it consistent or does it need revision?

So, unless there is a revised version somewhere, I say we should always stick to the proposed mechanics. This is what was agreed upon when Token Generation Event took place.

I hope the team takes up this issue and provides us with information/solution in the next AMA.

@indra @Richard

The reason overall coins are minted lesser each year depends on the overall staked ratio. It bounces between 17-41% based on total staked. The initial was 35% inflation so since we are at 69% staked, it is bound to go down but the rate it goes down is very slow.

It is a dynamic inflation system, and it goes up and down depending on staked ratio.

Regarding about the used of funds, i think it is alright for any company to rebalance and shift where the amount goes to according to market pricing of developments.

For example:
I can allocate 5 million for the future. But i do not know how much development may cost in the future and it could very much be possible that the team had to shift tokens based on paying for costs. That said, of course it would be best if they are transparent with it.

It is very normal for any company, whether in the traditional world or crypto, to reallocate funds to certain departments because of varying cost, especially back in 2019-2020 when it was a total bear market where most companies shut down.

Currently, i’m just defending based on how traditional companies work. Re-allocating funds here and there based on market pricing. I could be wrong but i dont think they will do anything to harm the company. They went through a 3 year bear market without shutting down.

Maybe the team can clarify. Let’s see.

There are lots of stuff changed since v1 white paper.

As far as I remember it’s said down the road everything will be collected in goverance funds page.

To be clear about fundings and funds etc.

There are decisions between take soley by team and it’s best for project at certain time frame.

So brining this topic should be covered at anyways in an official document than a comment here in forum.

It’s essential part of the white paper and to any investor.

And I agree such action without clarifications in outside related to company address bring lots of questions and fear. I see alot with similar situations.

We trust team and know things had Abit of it had to change to that but again for sake of transparency must be covered in an official document and submitted on the website or GitHub as part of whitepaper.