Leaving aside the way in which RIP-018 was voted on (there should have been two votes: one for increasing the token supply, another for how to distribute the tokens), if RIP-18 was approved including the decision to maintain the maximum number of DN at 10,000, I don’t understand the purpose of this discussion then.
To avoid introducing changes to the current darknode limit of 10,000 nodes, the darknode bond would need to be increased in line with the new total supply. Therefore it is also proposed that current registered darknodes (roughly 2,000 at the time of this proposal) are not diluted, by receiving the amount of REN needed to roll over their current node bonds to the new network
and again
if for example 100M REN is the final result, each darknode would receive 10,000 REN (100M / 10,000 node limit), and the total amount going to the Ren Foundation would be 100M - (2,000 nodes * 10,000) = 80M.
Option B is therefore the only option. What remains to be discussed is who will receive the airdrop.
I think the intent on this topic was to discuss whether the one time airdrop is really the better idea for the DNOs and long-term health of the project itself.
This detail was added into the RIP without prior discussion. I created this thread because several community members raised objections to this. I can understand, as with the confusion surrounding the shutdown of 1.0 and the uncertainty about everything, some may have been waiting to bond, others may have deregistered thinking they would have to anyway- and then all of a sudden now they need to come up with almost 20% more Ren.
I’m still bonded so it’s not about preserving myself, but what is best for the project. It’s not a huge thing but no little thing either. We are talking about 36 million Ren and a number of loyal community members who may be getting a bad deal.
If we work this correctly, we may also gain more nodes at startup and possibly protect our treasury
I fully agree with @DeFi_Whiskey, whose business experience and expertise rings true through his words.
Clear leadership, a tech audit and accountability to DNOs are all of the utmost importance and any kind of airdrop of funds that could be used to turn around REN feels more like a cheap cash grab and besides the point than anything else. It would also be a great opportunity for some exit liquidity for anyone holding a ton of nodes… but I digress.
The whole idea that more available node slots means less node earnings assumes we will ever be running at maximum node capacity. This has never happened and, I would argue, is extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future. Even if we began to approach capacity, the cost/benefit of operating nodes that are actually performing work and not just a node-in-name-only would likely find an equilibrium below the max cap. And if all new funds are kept in the treasury, there will be no spike in inflation due to circulating supply remaining relatively unchanged. Money printing only creates inflation if velocity of money increases with it (which is why inflation remained relatively flat in the US after 2008, when the super-wealthy got all the bail-out money vs post-covid, when people who would actually spend more on necessities got it).
If the protocol ever got so wildly successful that everyone was clamoring to get in and nobody was earning enough, well, DNOs could always vote for the DAO to buy and burn some REN, or set up some automated tool for this.
I think the only way REN survives and thrives is through a period of centralized leadership, overseeing a transfer of control from whomever the hell actually has it to some body ultimately owning back to DNOs.