Not sure if I’m qualified to even comment on this. I will say the diagram itself is easier to follow than many I’ve seen, so that is done well. The tokenomics of what it shows tho is where I don’t feel qualified.
I do agree with Yellow Cake and other comments on here from what I do understand. And as with them, my first impression was “that sure seems like a LOT of daily minting.” I’m not sure why it isn’t designed to mint “as needed.”
Strong value for any asset always boils down to supply and demand. When there is a product, antique, Real Estate, stock share, token, collectable item …,
Whatever the asset is, it’s value is 100% fully determined by supply and demand. This is why I prefer to see supply added as demand increases.
My observation is that the crypto world has gone way overboard on the supply side. I realize that rewards are incentive to hold and provide liquidity. That is all great, but when not regulated, it’s just like the central banks constantly printing money to spend, it drags the value down.
I’d encourage using a model which creates tokens based on activity, volume, need, etc., from the very process being rewarded rather than the idea of generating a giant pot to give away regardless of whether there is sufficient use-case to warrant the supply growth.
The best scenario creates just slightly less supply than there is demand, thus causing a continued desire (demand) for a strong asset. Rewards are great, but increases in value creates far more interest. Sure, some look at an asset for the rewards, but most are looking at growth to determine their participation.
A balance of the two is better than either/or. If it’s all value growth, you get a pump and dump. If it’s all rewards, it’s difficult to get the ultimate consumers, so no matter how huge the rewards are, earning 300% APY is nothing if the asset is dropping value at a greater rate. There are MANY tokens out there proving this.