Here's a counter argument to your post even though I do hold both VVV and DIEM. (Disclaimer: I used ai to help me format my argument) Erik has stated the goal is for VVV emissions to asymptotically approach zero while burns rise above that amount, making VVV net deflationary. But the entire financial model you've built here depends on a non-zero staking APR. The mint haircut is 20% of staking yield. 20% of zero is zero. As emissions decline, the haircut revenue per DIEM declines in lockstep. The "perpetual annuity" has a structurally declining coupon that the founder himself is deliberately driving toward zero. Second, calling the mint haircut "revenue" requires Venice to eventually sell that VVV to someone. Venice has explicitly stated they haven't sold any VVV to date — they're buying more and burning it. If they burn the haircut VVV, that's not revenue, it's supply management with zero direct economic benefit to Venice. If they hold it, it's unrealized treasury value subject to VVV price risk. If they sell it, it creates the sell pressure that undermines VVV price appreciation, which undermines the entire model. Pick one — you can't call it revenue and also celebrate that Venice never sells. Third, the buyback point gets inverted. The actual dollar flow is: Venice earns USD from subscriptions → spends real dollars buying VVV → burns it → VVV holders benefit. That's a subsidy flowing from Venice's USD business to token holders, not profit flowing from tokens to Venice. The mint haircut partially offsets this cost but the net direction of value transfer is from Venice to holders. Fourth, at zero emissions the entire staking rationale collapses. When Venice does buyback burns, that supply reduction benefits every VVV holder proportionally regardless of whether their VVV is staked, unstaked, or locked. As emissions approach zero there's simply no reason to stake VVV at all if you're not immediately minting DIEM — you're accepting a 7-day lockup for zero yield when burns accrue to you equally whether staked or not. Erik's stated goal of emissions approaching zero is fundamentally incompatible with your thesis that DIEM scales profitably via the staking/minting/haircut engine. What Venice actually has is a real USD business generating real revenue, with a token ecosystem that serves as a powerful but subsidized community and marketing layer. The tokens attract attention, build loyalty, and helped recruit talent with early allocations. That's genuinely valuable. But it's an indirect strategic benefit funded by USD revenue, not an independent profit center. Your elaborate equilibrium math seems to work during the inflationary emissions phase. It quietly assumes that phase is permanent. The founder has told us it isn't. x.com/ErikVoorhees/s…
