Modification of ELA Economic Model

A proposal for ELA to modify the economic model (关于修改ELA经济模型的提案)
https://www.cyberrepublic.org/suggestion/5f219d357a0b6d0078042205

Abstract
The proposal plans to modify the ELA’s economic model, We will implement the following work plan:1. Reach a consensus on the need to modify the economic model, 2. Conduct online video conferencing discussions , 3. Get the draft revision of the economic model, 4. Hold the second online meeting to discuss the draft, 5.Modify the proposal and send it to all CR councils for comments , 6. Form a formal proposal and submit it to the website for voting.

Motivation
一、货币源于债务
自从货币脱离金本位之后,货币正式进入国家信用本位,目前所有国家的货币基本上都是债务货币,基础货币的信用背书是国债、外汇,其它的M2背书是信贷,所有的货币都是在债务背书下产生的。
物物交换在古代可能存在,但很多人类学的考古证据都表明,历史上我们从来没有纯粹的物物交换的时代,无论是牛、盐、贝壳,都是帮助人们在生活中对债权债务关系的一种度量,而债权债务关系的背后就是个人的信用,
比如:A向B买了一支鸡,并写了一张欠条,承诺未来给B和这只鸡同等价值的东西,之后B向C买了5斗米,B就把那张欠条给了C,以此类推,这个欠条就成了流通的凭证,也就充当了货币的功能。
随着社群不断庞大,有了中心化组织之后,就由中心化机构发行货币,有了统一的货币记账工具,全体成员就能够方便记录债权债务关系,而这个货币的背后就是中心化的主权作为支撑,中心化的组织充当了货币的信用担保人,这个货币可以是金银、铜钱甚至是一张纸、一串代码。

二、股权是一种特殊的债务,货币是一种特殊的股权
如果说货币是代表中心化的主权债务,那么股权就是一个组织的特殊债务,这个组织可以看做是一个虚拟的法人,这个虚拟的法人所有的行为准则按照章程来运行,股东就是特殊的债权人,不仅享有章程约定的管理权利,还享有最终的利润分配权,甚至可以收回(撤资)或者转让债务(股权交易),但如果一个国家就是一个法人,那么所有股东所持有的股权能不能作为流通的货币呢?显然不能,流通的货币必须要稳定币值,而一个国家的财富是不断增加的,股权数量不变的情况下,每股的价值必然不断升高,违背了币值稳定的目标。
所以股权想要成为货币,必须在此基础上再加上一条中央特权(董事会特权),可以增发股权给董事会成员,首先,因为他们为国家工作需要工资、一些基础设施和公益事业,私人无法参与,因为可能无利可图,所以得董事会出钱,而董事会的钱只能来源于增发的股权,怎么增发呢,通过债务增发,怎么还呢,税收和投资收益。法定货币这种享有特权的股权,持币人不仅失去对国家的管理权,还失去了分红权。由于国家天然有追求社会财富快速增长的动机(薅下的羊毛都是自己的,多多益善),导致股权增发速度超过了社会财富增长速度,最终结果是,持币人不仅得不到分红,而且还要承受货币贬值。

三、ELA:股权和货币的结合体
ELA本质上是更接近股权,首先持有ELA的成员享有投票权,也可以转让交易,与传统股权不同的是,ELA持有者没有明确的分红权,而且每年还会按照章程和程序设定,不断的增发。而增发的动机是去中心化的货币系统运行需要资金,同时项目生态需要投入资金,所以就在程序设置中,加入了只有主权国家(中心化组织)才会进行的货币增发,但中心化的货币由中心化的组织根据社会财富创造情况进行自由调节,而ELA的增发是程序设定的,是非常难自由调节的,所以说ELA既是股权又是货币,但更接近于股权,因为增发的初衷不是为了掠夺社会财富,也没有中心化的自由调节机制。
ELA的增发速度远远超过了项目创造的总财富增长速度,导致ELA的快速贬值。那么和BTC相比,为什么BTC项目基本开发完毕了,而且也在增发,为什么价值还在不停攀升。这就得回到章程,或者说合约和共识。虽然BTC也在增发,但和国家法定货币增发机制不同,BTC是不断缩小增发量,直至为0,这是写进程序几乎不可更改的,是值得被相信的,这就是一个很好的共识机制,所有持币人愿意相信增发只是暂时的,只要未来增发趋于零,那么目前的增发和价格波动就是可以被接受的,所有同样共识的持币人就好像持有潜力股一样,一股都不愿意卖,这就维持了币值的稳定,就算BTC项目创造的总财富实际只有1万亿,但只要其中一半BTC不流通,那么币值就能达到2万亿。
举个例子,10个人每人都有一颗鸡蛋,市场上10个人每人都需要一颗鸡蛋,如果这十个人愿意以价值X卖掉,那么鸡蛋的市值就是10X,但如果只有5个人愿意卖,但市场上10个人都抢着买,最终价值就会变成或者接近2X(市场上所有的货币都拿来买这5个鸡蛋了),那么鸡蛋的市值就变成了20X。
例子中,鸡蛋是有使用价值的,但BTC现阶段想充当货币的使用价值的应用范围比较小,因为BTC是去中心的,和ELA一样,没有中心化组织自由调节增发数量来保障币值稳定,目前BTC的价值主要体现在2个方面,一方面是稀缺品的收藏价值,另一方面就是是暗网交易的货币使用价值。收藏价值是通过制造稀缺形成共识来实现的,一旦共识破灭收藏价值就会快速归零(目前看很难发生),而暗网交易的使用价值是通过非常安全的去中性化支付系统来实现的,但暗网交易量占全部经济活动的交易量微乎其微。
可见,无论是BTC还是ELA都无法充当稳定价值的交易货币,BTC更接近于一种收藏品,而ELA目前看并无收藏品的属性,更接近一种无分红权的股权。

四、ELA经济模型目前所面临的问题
ELA虽然更接近一种股权,所有持币人可以投票或者竞选参与节点选举获得收益,也可以投票或者竞选社区委员,对社区进行管理,但是ELA并没有明确的社区财产所有权(去中心化的项目一般都没有财产所有权),也没有明确项目创造收益的分红权利。
持有ELA的所有成员的初衷肯定是希望ELA升值的,而不是为了获得那点投票的收益,也不奢望会有生态项目后续会反哺给社区成员,因为只要是不确定的事情、没有写进章程、程序、智能合约的事项都是属于目前没有形成共识的事项。
总结下,ELA目前面临的尴尬境地:1.虽然是区块链项目,却没有通过制造稀缺性来让持币人形成坚定持有的共识,2.项目规划非常庞大,需要大量资金投入生态项目建设,而目前一直没有找到非常有效的市场需求切入点,且章程或者程序里也没有明确关于生态项目如何反哺给持币人的机制。

五、ELA为何也需要制造稀缺
由于项目非常庞大,而短期是无法看到其使用价值,即使是长期看,也存在很多的不确定性,所以想靠整个项目的价值提升速度超过增发速度以达到ELA不断增值的目标目前很难实现。所以通过改变增发模型,设计出ELA的稀缺性才能让ELA持有者形成坚定持有的共识。这是一个良性循环,坚定持有那么币价就会不断提高,币价不断提高又正向激励持币者继续坚定持有。

六、Our team’s Suggestions(我们团队的建议)

The preliminary proposal is to adjust the distribution ratio of mining income among POW/DPOS/CR: 20/50/30.
对POW/DPOS/CR三者之间挖矿收益的分配比例进行调整,初步建议为:20/50/30。

The base of additional issuance should be adjusted from 33 million to 23 million.
对增发基数进行调整,建议由3300万调整为2300万,

Adjust the inflation ratio, suggest 4% to 5%
对通胀比例进行调整,建议4%调整为5%

To adjust the inflation model, it is suggested to modify it into BTC additional issue model, and synchronize with BTC additional issue by half.
对通胀模型进行调整,建议修改为BTC增发模型,并与btc减半增发同步。

Goal
The content to be voted on in this proposal is as follows:

Do you agree to modify the existing economic model of ELA by referring to BTC’s economic model?

If you don’t agree, we want to know clearly whether you don’t agree with the changes, or whether you agree with the changes but have a better economic model?

本次提案需要表决的内容为:

您是否同意参考BTC的经济模型,对ELA现有的经济模型进行修改?

如果您不同意,我们希望明确知道您是不同意修改,还是您同意修改但有更好的经济模型?

@mikes11: Drastically reducing rewards for Bitcoin miners securing our network through merge-mining at this early stage of elastOS is very risky and is not something I will support right now.

==========

@witzer: The purpose of this proposal is to reach a consensus on modifying the economic model. No actual modification of the economic model will be carried out. After the proposal is passed, it will enter the second stage:2. Conduct online video conferencing discussions 。

@witzer: There is no specific modification plan in this proposal, which needs to be discussed and agreed upon in the future.

@xiaomeng: 支持!第一:按照销毁后的总体量进行通胀。第二:既然同btc联合挖矿,就应该同步btc每四年减半一次!

@xiaomeng: 不支持更改模型的行为都是耍流氓的行为!第一:既然已经销毁1300w的ela,通胀就应该按照现在的体量进行计算!第二:美其名曰同btc联合挖矿,就应该同btc同步,每四年减半一次!这样才能真正说服市场投资人!

@benchan: @林俊强 Witzer Thank you for making this suggestion. It is deemed necessary to come up with a better model, esp. after the burn execution. It is also a good timing at the very beginning of official CR running.

I agree that the ratio of rewards should be adjusted. If we consider the CR 1631M tokens are some sort of “free money”, we should also look into the nature of the three categories of mining rewards. Rewards without effort are free money. In this regard, CR part is free money while DPoS isn’t, and PoW is sth in between.

DPoS requires staking by holders, which is their opportunity cost for other uses (payment/trading/etc). Due to merged mining, PoW miners are not using additional cost to obtain ELA, so it is “free” to them. In the future, if there are dedicated mining for ELA, that can be counted as “not free”.

For the CR part, apparently there is no effort to acquire those coins. Therefore, it is a pure inflation, or a “tax” on current stakeholders. It is not necessarily a problem if the rate is under certain level. Another way is to see the tokens as “shares”. When a company issues new shares, it allows stakeholders to purchase the new shares at a discount, proportional to their stake. Unpurchased shares will be “burnt” and never be issued. If this applies, it can be a way to avoid free money, and encourages ELA staking indirectly.

In view of the above analysis, I am inclined to POW/DPOS/CR --> 20/50/30, with part/all of CR 30% issued as “shares”. Regarding the timing, this could be a risky one as @mikes11 mentioned, but this can also a good timing since the value of ELA is not a concern to miners atm.

Regarding the “halving model”, does it mean starting from 5% to 2.5% to 1.25% and so on? As a side note, BTC gains it authority not only becoz of an effective deflationary model, but more importantly the model cannot be amended. How ELA token metric model/what mechanism can be designed to minimize the fear of money printing in the future? Can the author and community shed light on this? @ALL (All Council Members)

For all the numbers mentioned above, could the author update with illustrative graphs for discussion @林俊强 Witzer. With a proper economic model for ELA, Elastos platform and ELA itself will thrive. With a successful arrival to a consensus of this “proposal”, we can confirm a robust DAO model given by CR. I am optimistic with this.

==========

@witzer: @benchan Yes, this is a gathering proposal, and if no one feels the need to modify the economic model, there will be no plan for the next meeting.

@zbig001: 1.
Bitcoin does not seem the most suitable example here.

Even Bitcoin researchers criticize its security model and point out that if it continues, Bitcoin will no longer be sufficiently secured.

Bitcoin may be exposed to 51% attacks due to the growing disproportion between the financial incentives for miners and the accumulated coin supply.
Under these abnormal conditions, even the continuation of Bitcoin’s price increase from a security factor will become a factor that increases the likelihood of an attack.

Here you can download a research paper on this topic


Please try your hand at reading and undestanding it, including applied mathematics.
Pay attention to the term “miner-extractable value” (MEV).

Diminishing the importance of some element of consensus mechanism, just because it is difficult to understand how it works, can only end in disaster.

There are many coins designed from scratch as currency, not only Bitcoin.
But what does this have to do with Elastos?

We should not ignore the fact that Elastos is a project of a modern Internet, whose blockchain pillar and currency are only one of the components…
We will not give it value by taking most of the benefits for ourselves and risking an evolution towards centralization.

If Elastos modern Internet is not secure and decentralized beyond doubt, it may never be adopted.

@xynder: more Witzer pump n dump trash.