Jonas

@saxemberg @Polkadot As I've mentioned in the proposal, these numbers are up for discussion. But, I'd like to also point out that my proposal does not only include a stablecoin payment. Instead, it is complemented with a significant DOT payment that would be in the thousands of DOT yearly.

@GehrleinJonas @Polkadot 2000 Gavin dollars for validation seems way too low when the original messaging was 5000. Even with the mandatory 10k DOT stake it doesn't seem to be worth it. This should be a warning sign for all validators within the ecosystem tbh. Hopefully it gets reconsidered.

I’ve shared a proposal for a Dynamic Allocation Pool (DAP): an issuance buffer that sits between @Polkadot’s token issuance and its funding destinations. It comes with a set of complementary protocol changes designed to align Polkadot’s economics for what’s ahead.

you can find the link here: forum.polkadot.network/t/proposal-dyn…

Polkadot just pulled off what is the most insane cross-chain application yet. Cross-chain chain state migration. An application that migrates the state of one chain (Polkadot Relay), accounts, code balances etc to another chain (Polkadot Hub) Truly historical feat

@hydration_net Holla(r), die Waldfee!

HOLLAR is HERE 🔥 Hydration’s native, decentralized stablecoin currency Built on battle-tested code (AAVE) with additional peg-support by the HOLLAR Stability Module Get HOLLAR today: app.hydration.net/trade/swap?ass…

I shared my thoughts in the @Polkadot forum on the recent discussion to further reduce inflation. In these discussions, the relationship between inflation and economic resilience has largely been ignored. I created a report to educate on the topic and propose additional policies that I deem necessary, if the community votes to set up the protocol on a path of drastically reduced inflation. link 👇 forum.polkadot.network/t/polkadots-ec…

> Current AI tools (LLMs specifically) are just Markov chains. Just Markov chains can be very powerful, yes, and we have barely begun to explore their possibilities. But Markov chains will not replace humans. If you feel so, you need to stop devaluing yourself and have more confidence in the soul that you have been given. And if you don't believe in souls, look into your mother's eyes. very powerful statement.

This is how we, at Ente, think about AI ente.io/blog/human-fir…

Last week, the @Polkadot Technical Fellowship approved #RFC0017, which proposes to redesign key aspects of the coretime market. Implementation will begin soon and I’ll share timeline updates as they become available. This followed an extensive discussion with lots of valuable feedback. Huge thanks to everyone who contributed and helped shape the outcome. Read the RFC here 👇 polkadot-fellows.github.io/RFCs/approved/…

If you're talking about the halving inflation idea, I’ve got bad news for you: the fees collected from transactions are likely to be orders of magnitude lower than what a halving of inflation would cut from new issuance. So, it wouldn't be feasible to try to plug any holes in Treasury inflow or staking rewards that would be caused by lowering inflation. Even though one could potentially reduce the Treasury's share, but roughly speaking, halving inflation from now means halving current staking rewards. So it seems you need to decide: do you want less inflation and accept that staking rewards will drop significantly - or not? You can’t have it both ways.

@GehrleinJonas Hm i have the better idea - with new talks about fixed supply and real supply decreasion, we will give to stakers 100% their staking rewards but the comissions from transactions we can redirect to treasury, is it solid? Cuz the last referendum about inflation stole our rewards %

RFC#0146 proposing a Deflationary Transaction Fee Model for the Relay Chain and its System Parachains just passed the fellowship vote 🥳 check it here: 👇 polkadot-fellows.github.io/RFCs/proposed/…

Sorry, am I genuinely confused here. You are blaming the Polkadot community that they don't have interest in your products? What perspective is that? Despite that, the DAO grants you $150k and you still feel let down? I can understand that you think things are not working well within Polkadot and you have all the right to be frustrated and even distance yourself from Polkadot. But cashing in $150k and then making this post has very bad optics. I've been supporting your proposal but I have to tell you, that I am feeling let down by this.

You’re wrong. And honestly, it just sounds like you’re picking a fight — take a break, man, go have a smoke or something. And one more thing — we’ve never been fools. We’ve always done everything we could with genuine interest and care for the ecosystem. But only four device orders from the entire Polkadot community? You seriously think that’s normal? Anyway, whatever — go enjoy playing FIFA Rivals, the one that got, what, $37 million in funding?

Farewell Letter to the Polkadot Community and Our Plans to Launch the World’s First Web3-Native Smart Devices - Not for Tokens, but for Your Freedom! -- robonomics.network/blog/farewell-… -- We won’t continue seeking support in a harbor where we feel unneeded. We’re not chasing other flags - Polkadot remains an exceptional technology, and we’ll keep building with it. Even without the ideal gear for this journey. Over the next six months, we’ll operate as a geek gadget lab, showcasing our smart devices to a wide audience of product launch enthusiasts and building a user community outside the crypto narrative. Our roadmap is: Indiegogo > Kickstarter > Amazon > Global Distribution Network > Robocorporation We aim to become fully autonomous and independent as a team, cutting ties with familiar shores if needed. We’re moving away from empty promises of grand plans that end in “how many tokens will you give?” and focusing on selling what we’ve built with our own hands. We have no analogs in the world, and our team will strive to prove that people in the web3 space - beyond icons like Gavin or Vitalik - also understand why this technology exists, not just using compelling narratives for enrichment. Keep walking…

Some groups, tribes, or nations are intelligent while composed of very stupid individuals; other are stupid while made up of intelligent members. It is all about how people interact.

RFC#146, which proposes burning 80% of transaction fees on @Polkadot’s Relay Chain and all its system parachains, is currently up for voting with the Technical Fellowship 🤞 polkadot-fellows.github.io/RFCs/proposed/…

@tugytur Also, I hope you mean the German version of the office 😉

best shows of all time: Mr. Robot Altered Carbon (S1) Ozark The Sopranos Silicon Valley The Office Archer Cyberpunk Edgerunners Doctor Who

@tugytur - Pantheon - Bojack Horseman anybody?

Small update on the unbonding queue for staked tokens on the @Polkadot Relay Chain (RFC-0097): The team at @0xBlockDeep has completed their PR and is now requesting reviews from staking OGs. Still a bit of road ahead: reviews, minor fixes, audits, packaging into a runtime upgrade, and finally getting it on-chain. But we are getting there. The PR is here: github.com/paritytech/pol…

I've pushed a major revision of RFC#0017. The goal was to improve on its clarity and give some more details to address some concerns raised during discussions. I believe this design is the best candidate going forward to get an efficient pricing model for Polkadot's coretime. Read it here: polkadot-fellows.github.io/RFCs/proposed/…

The new design changes the perspective on renewals. They are meant to be a safety-net in situations where things went wrong and a team was not able to obtain a core in the open market. Due to the clearing price mechanism, bidding in the auction is as easy as renewing now (or maybe easier). Remember, it is a dutch auction. So, basically a bid is equivalent to a purchase. A team already having a core is guaranteed to get the core(s) if they made the purchase. Additionally, the premium is ONLY applied whenever there is more demand for cores than there are cores available. That means, the premium is 0% whenever there are cores left unsold.

@TheDotsTalks imo the +30% premium is retardio and a tax on existing customers. I was on board with a small premium but this is just taking the Michael tbh

Polkadot Coretime Renewal Mechanism Needs an Urgent Rework ASAP!!! Renewing a core is 1200x cheaper than buying from the market: 0.753 DOT vs. 922 DOT Total disaster. 🤯 How the current mechanism works: you just pay +3% over what you paid last month. That puts early Polkadot core buyers in god mode. Some paid <1 DOT and now renew forever for peanuts. It breaks the entire economic system. FYI: the Coretime Baron bussiness is built on this flaw. Jonas from W3F is pushing to fix it with RFC17 🙏 It replaces fixed renewal prices with a market-driven model – demand sets the price. If you own a core, you have two options: • Participate in the auction and pay the market-based price like everyone else, or • Use your renewal right by skipping the auction, but pay 30% over the market price. ___________ @GehrleinJonas do we have any ETA on RFC17? The problem has gone too far.

@LRazovic I can't even deny that it would make total sense. But I'd have settled for a reasonable price... I even wrote the Baron (myself?) an e-mail pointing out that their strategy won't pay off if the referendum passes...

My favorite Polkadot conspiracy theory is that the Coretime Baron is one of the folks participating in the RFC thread: github.com/polkadot-fello…

@le_mec @LRazovic Is that on-chain? Base-layer or lightning?

looks like you can send some BTC via X pretty nice, ngl how much you want? @LRazovic