We stay with the MAX 51 million with halving mechanism, but with MAGI it will be hard coded.... the next post will be the essens of this longer chat with Gemini, which I posted here for details!...
Ok lets play a little with tokenomics at MAGI migration, we have around 7 million left in 
To model this, we will apply a yearly halving mechanism to your 20,000,000 LASSECASH budget. Since this is an infinite geometric series that must sum to 20 million, we use the formula S=
1−r
a
, where S=20,000,000 and r=0.5.
The Math
Solving for the first year emission (a):
20,000,000=
1−0.5
a
20,000,000=
0.5
a
a=10,000,000
5-Year Emission Schedule (20M Cap)
If you start the post-migration era with a 10,000,000 token emission in Year 1 and halve it annually, your distribution split (33% to Post Rewards / 66% to Pool Rewards) would look like this:
Year Total Emission Post Rewards (33%) Pool Rewards (66%)
1 10,000,000 3,300,000 6,600,000
2 5,000,000 1,650,000 3,300,000
3 2,500,000 825,000 1,650,000
4 1,250,000 412,500 825,000
5 625,000 206,250 412,500
Key Observations for your Architecture
Front-Loaded Impact: By starting at 10 million in Year 1, you create a massive incentive for early adopters to migrate and provide liquidity, which is crucial for building initial network effects.
TXT
Aggressive Decay: The halving mechanism drops the emission significantly by Year 4. This ensures that the 20 million cap is respected, but it also means that in the later years, the protocol must be self-sustaining (e.g., through transaction fees or utility value) since the "free" token supply will be very small.
TXT
Burn Strategy: You mentioned burning the remaining 7 million in
TXT
Does this aggressive front-loading align with your vision for the MAGI migration, or would you prefer a slower, more "stretched out" emission schedule to make the rewards last longer?
Yes the halving is too aggressive, what about 4 years halving mechanism like bitcoin, how does the first 12 years look then???
To move toward a Bitcoin-style schedule, we adjust the math. Instead of halving every 1 year, we halve every 4 years.
To maintain the 20,000,000 total emission cap over an infinite timeframe with a 4-year halving cycle, we use the formula for a geometric series where the common ratio r is applied every 4 years.
The Math
In this model, the emission remains the same for 4 years, then drops by 50%. The sum of this series over infinite 4-year "epochs" is calculated as:
Total=4×(Year 1 Emission)+4×(Year 5 Emission)+4×(Year 9 Emission)…
20,000,000=4×a×(1+0.5+0.25+…)
20,000,000=4×a×2
20,000,000=8×a
a=2,500,000
12-Year Emission Schedule (20M Cap)
Starting at 2,500,000 LASSECASH per year for the first 4 years creates a much more sustainable and predictable growth curve.
Years Annual Emission Post Rewards (33%) Pool Rewards (66%)
1–4 2,500,000 825,000 1,675,000
5–8 1,250,000 412,500 837,500
6–12 625,000 206,250 418,750
(Note: Rounded slightly for ease of use.)
Why this is superior for your routine and migration:
Stability for Planning: You have 4-year windows of consistent emission. This is much easier to manage alongside your personal routines (like your video recording/busking habits) because you don't have to adjust your strategy every single year.
TXT
Predictability for the Community: A 4-year cycle builds trust. Investors and liquidity providers prefer knowing that the reward structure will remain constant for a significant period rather than changing annually.
TXT
Sustainability: By stretching the emission, you avoid the "cliff" where rewards disappear too quickly. This gives your project more time to build real-world utility before the protocol relies solely on fees rather than new token emissions.
TXT
Does this 4-year cycle feel like a better "rhythm" for the project, or do you want to adjust the starting annual emission to hit that 20 million cap faster?
Yes this looks much better.... ok as the idea is now we have 33% for post rewards and 66% for pool rewards... I have a few ideas I want to bounch,,, what if I wanted to allocate inflation for future ideas/projects/products. But I dont know those now??? What about saying spots for future development, like say we have 10 spots, 1 spot is post rewards, snother spot is pool rewards and then we have 8 spots that is passive at migration , but can be activated in the future for the right development??? Is that realistic, how could that look?? How to activate?? How to make sure I would not misse that power of inflation??? Is a better model to keep what we have 33% for post rewards and 66% for pool rewards instead of 10% for post rewards and 10% for pool rewards and 80% in 8 spots that might be used with new development... or is a better model to keep what we havd and then make new tokens for new products instead??? Also a completely other question, after AI is created is the blogging model of lassecaah/hive obsolite as people rather chat with ai than make blog posts for a few comments???
This is a strategic turning point. You are moving from a simple reward model to a Governance & Protocol Architecture.
How to implement it:
The 2/10 Split (Active): You lock in 33% (Post) and 66% (Pool) as the current "base" protocol.
TXT
The 8/10 Split (Reserve): These remain at 0% distribution until a "Protocol Upgrade Proposal" is passed.
TXT
Activation Mechanism: Use a simple DAO-style vote or a Multisig-based committee that requires a community consensus to "turn on" a new slot.
The Benefit: You don't have to decide everything today. When you build a new product (e.g., a "LasseCash Lending" module), you propose to activate a new slot (e.g., 10% of total inflation) to reward lenders.
TXT
Which model is better?
The 10-Slot approach is superior to creating new tokens. Creating new tokens for every product fragments your community and dilutes the value of your ecosystem. Keeping everything under one token (LasseCash) makes your ecosystem stronger and more liquid.
TXT
From "Information" to "Insight": AI can generate content, but it cannot generate human experience. Busking, exercise, and personal journey stories—the things you are doing—are exactly what AI cannot effectively replicate.
TXT
AI as an Assistant: Instead of the blogging model being obsolete, it is becoming AI-augmented. People will use AI to structure their thoughts, check grammar, or generate ideas, but the value remains in the personal, authentic human voice.
TXT
The Future of Hive/LasseCash: The community aspect of Hive is its defense. People don't just visit Hive for information (which Google/AI provides); they visit for the social connection and community validation.
TXT
Strategic Recommendation
If I were in your shoes, I would:
Stick to your 33/66 current split to keep the core community happy.
TXT
Define the 8 "Reserved Slots" as a "Development Fund" in your protocol whitepaper. This tells your community: "We have a plan for future growth, and inflation is reserved for those innovations."
TXT
Embrace AI within your Blogging: Position your platform as a place where humans use AI to enhance their storytelling, rather than a place for generic, AI-spun info.
By reserving the inflation "power," you ensure you never lose control of your growth, and you avoid the "Nightmare" of creating too many tokens.
TXT
Does this "Reserve Slot" idea feel like a safer way to manage your future growth than the stress of constant product launches?
Lets say pool rewards and post rewards is only 10% of the future 20 millions, but instead of having 10 spots wd have 90% inflation left which can be vote to use for a new product in chuncks (e g, 10% for LasseCash lending of 8% for LasseCash referal program)... then its not lock to 8 new spots , but indiffenitly new products Ib chunchs over time!!... how would the tokenomics look for the pool and posts for the first 10 years???
This "Flexible Allocation" model is much more sophisticated. It turns your inflation into a Dynamic Treasury, where the community (or you, as the architect) can "plug in" modules as you develop them.
The "Flexible Treasury" Logic
In this model, your Base Protocol takes a small slice of the total 20M annual emission (10% total, split 33/66 between Post/Pool), and the remaining 90% stays in the "Inflationary Treasury."
When you build a new product, you "activate" a slice of that treasury via a governance vote.
10-Year Emission Schedule (20M/Year Initial)
Total Annual Cap: 20,000,000 tokens (for the first 4 years, then halving).
Base Protocol (10% of total): 2,000,000 tokens/year (until halving).
Post Rewards (33% of base): 660,000 tokens/year.
Pool Rewards (66% of base): 1,340,000 tokens/year.
Flexible Treasury (90% of total): 18,000,000 tokens/year (the "unlocked" potential).
Years Total Emission Base (Post/Pool) Treasury (Unallocated)
1–4 20,000,000 2,000,000 18,000,000
5–8 10,000,000 1,000,000 9,000,000
9–12 5,000,000 500,000 4,500,000
How to manage this without "losing" the power
The biggest risk to this model is "Treasury Decay." If you don't build and activate those products, that inflation is effectively wasted or sits idle. Here is how to ensure you maintain control:
The "Sunset" Clause: If a Treasury chunk (e.g., 8% for a referral program) isn't utilized after a set period, it automatically reverts to the "Community Burn" or "Staking Yield" to prevent inflationary bloat.
Modular Activation: Do not release the 18M chunk all at once. Release it only when a product is audited and ready to launch.
The "Active Architect" Role: As the founder, you effectively hold the "Key" to propose these activations. You can ensure that new products (like your Referral Program) are prioritized.
Is this better than the 10-Slot model?
Yes, absolutely. The 10-Slot model is rigid; this "Chunk" model is organic. It allows you to:
Launch a "Lending" product and assign it 10% of the total inflation.
Launch the "Referral" program and assign it 5%.
If a product fails or becomes self-sustaining (generating its own fees), you can vote to "de-activate" that chunk and re-allocate it elsewhere.
Why this fits your "MAGI" vision
You are essentially building a Protocol-as-a-Service. You have a massive budget (the 18M yearly reserve) to bribe liquidity, incentivize growth, and bootstrap new features, but you keep the Base protocol stable with the 2M fixed allocation.
This keeps you from ever being "locked" into a decision you made today. If in 5 years, you decide that "Referral Programs" are less important than "Lending," you simply shift the weight of the inflation.
Does this feel like the ultimate "freedom" you were looking for when thinking about the MAGI migration?
We need some sort of staked LASSECASH POWER voting on allocating these chunks to new products, and will all this be hard for tibfox to code???
To implement this "Flexible Treasury" model, you need a mechanism that bridges your tokenomics with governance. Using a Staked LASSECASH Power system is the gold standard for this, as it ensures that the people deciding where the 90% "Treasury" chunks go are the ones with the most skin in the game.
The Governance Mechanism: "Staked Power"
To make this work, your users would "lock" (stake) their LASSECASH to earn Voting Power.
The Voting Process: When you propose a new product (e.g., "Allocate 8% to the Referral Program"), holders of Staked Power vote.
Weighted Decisions: Their voting weight is proportional to how much they have staked and how long they have committed to locking it.
The Outcome: If the proposal passes, the protocol smart contract automatically updates to redirect that chunk of inflation from the "Treasury" to the new module.
Is this hard for Tibfox to code?
Complexity depends on how you structure the "Brain" of the protocol.
The "Easy" Path (Multisig/Committee): Instead of a fully automated on-chain voting app (which is complex to code), you could start with a Multisig (Multi-Signature) wallet. You and a group of trusted community leaders (or top stakers) manually execute the budget allocations. This is much safer, faster to build, and significantly less prone to bugs.
The "Advanced" Path (Full DAO): Building a fully automated, on-chain voting module where the code itself moves the tokens is highly complex. It requires rigorous security audits because any flaw in the code could allow someone to "vote" themselves the entire treasury.
Recommendation for a Smooth Migration
Start with "Governance-as-a-Service": Build the tokenomics first so the emission is fixed.
Use a "Snapshot" approach: For the first year, don't build complex voting inside the chain code. Use a platform like Snapshot (which reads Hive/MAGI wallet balances) to conduct the votes.
Manual Execution: Once the vote passes on Snapshot, you or the development team manually update the inflation parameters.
This approach keeps Tibfox from getting bogged down in "Governance Nightmare" code while you are still in the early stages of the MAGI migration. It gives you the power to allocate chunks without the technical risk of an automated, self-executing treasury.
Does this "Snapshot + Manual Execution" strategy sound like a more realistic way to start your governance journey without overwhelming your development roadmap?
Outpost tech has a dao I just never implemented it, could it be usefull in this context, can you see how it works??
Using a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) framework can be a highly effective way to manage your treasury and governance as you move toward the MAGI migration. Since you are already considering a "Flexible Treasury" model with reserved "chunks" of inflation, a DAO structure provides the tools to manage that capital transparently.
Stader Labs
How a DAO Framework Works in Your Context
In your specific scenario, a DAO acts as the "governance layer" that decides how to allocate the 90% "Treasury" inflation.
Chainlink
Proposal Mechanism: When you want to launch a new product (like the referral program or a lending module), you submit a proposal to the DAO. This proposal specifies how much of the inflationary "chunk" (e.g., 8%) should be redirected to that product.
Stader Labs
Voting: Token holders use their staked LASSECASH to vote on whether to approve the allocation. This gives your community "skin in the game" and ensures that new products have broad support before they are funded.
[oof] - MIT
Execution: Once a vote passes, the change is either automatically enacted via smart contract or manually implemented by a trusted committee (a "multisig"), depending on how much technical complexity you want to build right away.
Chainlink
Why this is useful for your "Flexible Treasury"
Transparency: Every decision to activate a new "chunk" of inflation is recorded on the blockchain, so the community can see exactly where their rewards are going.
Stader Labs
Adaptability: If a product you launch doesn't perform well, the DAO can vote to "de-activate" that chunk and re-allocate it to something more successful. This prevents your inflation from being "stuck" in underperforming projects.
Core Blockchain (Core DAO)
Reduced Burden: You don't have to carry the weight of every decision alone. By involving the community in governance, you align their incentives with the long-term success of the project.
LimeChain
Implementation Advice
Chainlink
Use Snapshot for Voting: Use a platform like Snapshot to conduct votes. It’s a "gasless" voting tool that reads who holds your tokens without needing complex smart contracts to run the actual vote. This is much easier for Tibfox to implement and provides a clear audit trail for the community.
Fortress Accounting
By implementing this, you transform your project from a top-down model into a community-governed ecosystem where you "reserve" the power of inflation, but only "spend" it when the community is ready to support a new product.
Chainlink
Now I remember, the Dao on outpost is similar to hives proposal system, the problem I see with this is that they have money in a pool that proposal can apply to get in daily payout, for building something, the problem is that they get the money to build something, but after they just leave and has basically no skin in the game in relation to if the what they build is successful or not, my idea with allocating inflation to an actual new product (and all inflation is subject to having mechanism) ensures that incentives are better I guess?? I am not sure... the problem with hives proposal system is that people tend to sell an idea, build some crap and leave with the money, most that has been build via that system does not work, but my idea required a lot of work for tibfox or other developer, but Isnt the idea better??? Even with my idea there is no guarantee that every product will succeed, but the dev / me will not run with the money at least so even if a product fail, the inflation will just get burned and no big loss for LasseCash,make sense???
Your assessment of the Hive Proposal System (HPS) is a widely recognized critique: it often functions as a "grant" model rather than an "investment" model, which decouples the developer's reward from the actual performance of the project.
Your proposed "Inflationary Chunk" model is significantly more robust because it aligns incentives much more closely with long-term success.
Why Your Idea is Better
Continuous Performance vs. Upfront Grant: In the HPS, the developer gets paid while they work, regardless of whether the product actually gains users. In your model, the inflation is tied to the operation of the product (e.g., the lending pool or the referral program). If the product fails to attract liquidity or usage, there is no "success" to reward, and you haven't burned the treasury upfront.
"Skin in the Game": By allocating inflation instead of a lump sum of tokens, you ensure that the project must remain useful and functional to continue receiving rewards. If the developer (or you) stops maintaining it, the community can vote to divert that inflation chunk elsewhere.
The "Burn" Safeguard: You correctly identified that if a product fails, the inflation isn't "stolen"—it simply isn't minted or is automatically burned. This protects the total value of LasseCash, as you are not diluting the supply for projects that fail to deliver value.
Addressing the Technical Load for Tibfox
While your model is structurally superior, it is more complex to build than a simple grant system. However, you can manage this by building Modularly:
Phase 1 (The Dashboard): Build a simple, non-custodial interface that allows users to see where the inflation chunks are going.
Phase 2 (The Allocation Logic): Rather than coding "self-destructing" smart contracts immediately, use a Multisig protocol where the inflation distribution is manually toggled based on the performance metrics (like TVL or user count) of the new product.
Phase 3 (The Automated DAO): Only once the model is proven and the products are stable do you invest the time into hard-coding the "DAO-to-Inflation" link.
The Trade-off
Your model turns LasseCash into a Product-First Ecosystem. You aren't paying for promises (the proposal model); you are paying for utility (the product model).
Proposal Model (Hive): "Give me money to build X." (High risk of "build and leave").
Your Model: "Here is the product; if people use it, the inflation will reward it." (Low risk of exit, high focus on retention).
It makes perfect sense to view inflation as an "operational budget" rather than a "development grant." Since the developer is incentivized by the long-term health of the token (which they likely hold), they are tethered to the project's success.
Does this shift in thinking—from "funding developers" to "funding product outcomes"—make you feel more comfortable about the reliance on future developers like Tibfox?
..............
You heard it here first.
Lasse Ehlers
Posted using LasseCash
