Thank you. I understand the reasons, and I just hope all moving parts are being thoughtfully considered (the model just shows emissions per week and you can play with different prices - it is very interesting - but does not how everything will work together).
I also sincerely hope that the UI is adjusted accordingly. Today, apparently, we still have multipliers (I don’t think BIP 24 has been implemented yet). Yet a lot of people don’t know that and the UI doesn’t show.
I didn’t say that there is no evolution. I didn’t say that those changes are bad (otherwise I would have voted against, not for). As I have mentioned repeatedly, I have confidence in the team and in general, I am really excited about the direction the project is moving.
I did say, however that there have been major significant changes in only two weeks, that are adding complexity and a lot of moving parts. The proposals show individual models but not how they will work together, and there is very little information on implementation.
For example, it seems that BIP 24 will be implemented after launching DIGG and not before (this was mentioned in the Discord). So we are launching first, and then, a few days later, we are adjusting the rewards by implementing BIP 24. Then you will implement BIP 26, changing other parameters (which also affect the rewards). Then a boost will be implemented for NFT holders but it is not clear when and how it will work (for example if you already have maximum Badger boost, do you still get additional APR for holding the NFT)? The models shown in BIP 24 do not include this NFT boost (nor the proposal itself that was approved in the snapshot).
The emission plan essentially covers the budget we have for liquidity mining for the next 6 months.
As for the Badger Boost, NFT rewards, and potential locking rewards, their implementation doesn’t necessarily have to affect this budget.
Most likely they are going to be implemented on a zero-sum basis in terms of emissions.
Meaning that if someone receives more APY for holding NFTs, someone else receives a bit less.
And the same can be done with most other changes, including adjusting parameters in the emissions model.
I agree that it might be not evident how all the changes work together, so it might be hard for the governance to choose some parameters. But the good thing is we can always adjust these parameters based on new data so that the overall model would be more cohesive.
We just need to visualize all the relevant metrics and parameters and setup dashboards so people can analyse what we have and understand how everything interacts… I’d imagine this is a few hours/days of playing with Dune by one of the many people in our community who are into this kind of analysis.
If the dashboards can be setup to show your thinking/flow/the relationships we expect, it will help people learn/understand how it all works and make them better voters when it comes to thinking about these models in the future.
I’m finding it increasingly difficult to visualize a model going forward. The 3 part BIP 26, combined with BIP 24 and NFT/Levels is something that could really use a good infographic. Specifically, how they all work together.
Add in Digg, which is a complete wild card in this space…things are going to move very fast. While I believe that a lot of your thought put into the token/emission mechanics are sound, I’m concerned that it may be too much all at once (even over a couple of weeks)