Back to collectionA Reply About Burning Tokens and Real Use
Yesterday, people demanded that the team find a way to lift the token price. On the first anniversary of the second emissions halving, the team answered those demands point by point. The answer listed work already under way, but gave node owners no date for the return they hoped to see.
A creative chronicle combining project history with imagined scenes. Story events are not verification of network activity.
Yesterday, people demanded that the team find a way to lift the token price. One had spent several thousand dollars on a node that was now worth almost nothing. The argument had moved from the loss itself to whether burning tokens, making games, or attracting real use could address it.
On the first anniversary of the second emissions halving, the team answered those demands point by point. Burning was already written into the token model, it said, and was no new idea. Games had launched, partners were still developing others, and a Riftstorm beta was running. Long term value, it argued, could only grow from real use. The reply ended, as usual, with a link to submit ecosystem proposals.
The answer listed work already under way, but gave node owners no date for the return they hoped to see. The disagreement became more precise: should the community keep asking for changes to supply, or first ask what use the games were actually generating? The proposal route remained open, though nobody had yet turned that question into a proposal.