The @Polkadot community is currently calling for a fundamental change to its tokenomics. Ongoing inflation is steadily diluting the value of $DOT, leading to a growing perception that $DOT is not an asset to hold long-term—but rather one that should be sold before it loses more value. In response to this issue, Polkadot has introduced mechanisms to gradually reduce the inflation rate and burn tokens through transaction fees and coretime auction revenue. However, the amount burned still falls far short of the newly issued $DOT from inflation, limiting the overall effectiveness of these efforts. As a more direct approach to influence the market, a new proposal has been introduced to cap the total supply of $DOT. Currently, the community is discussing three options, with the “Hard Pressure” model receiving the strongest support: ✅ Hard Pressure - 2 year Period - 50% Step - 2.1B Cap ✅ Medium Pressure - 2 year Period - 33.33% Step - 2.5B Cap ✅ Soft Pressure - 2 year Period - 13.14% Step - 3.14B Cap Limiting the total supply could be an effective strategy to alleviate concerns over unlimited issuance, increase scarcity, and encourage long-term holding behavior. However, this raises an important question: Is it appropriate for such a critical decision to be made purely through community voting? 🤔 Tokenomics and advanced economic design require expert knowledge and deep analysis. Yet many members of the community—including myself—are not economic experts. Most are basing their judgments on shared analysis rather than in-depth research. In this context, one must question whether decisions of such magnitude should be made through simple majority votes. While voting is democratic, democratic processes do not inherently guarantee expertise. This is especially true for changes to tokenomics, which—once implemented—are extremely difficult to reverse. Such decisions must be approached with great caution and based not just on public sentiment, but also on rigorous research, simulations, expert input, and a well-informed community. Introducing a supply cap on $DOT may well be a valid and potentially effective solution. However, the process by which such a decision is made must be carefully designed, thoroughly reviewed, and supported by open, inclusive dialogue that all stakeholders can understand and trust.
The @Polkadot community is currently calling for a fundamental change to its tokenomics. Ongoing inflation is steadily diluting the value of $DOT, leading to a growing perception that $DOT is not an asset to hold long-term—but rather one that should be sold before it loses more value. In response to this issue, Polkadot has introduced mechanisms to gradually reduce the inflation rate and burn tokens through transaction fees and coretime auction revenue. However, the amount burned still falls far short of the newly issued $DOT from inflation, limiting the overall effectiveness of these efforts. As a more direct approach to influence the market, a new proposal has been introduced to cap the total supply of $DOT. Currently, the community is discussing three options, with the “Hard Pressure” model receiving the strongest support: ✅ Hard Pressure - 2 year Period - 50% Step - 2.1B Cap ✅ Medium Pressure - 2 year Period - 33.33% Step - 2.5B Cap ✅ Soft Pressure - 2 year Period - 13.14% Step - 3.14B Cap Limiting the total supply could be an effective strategy to alleviate concerns over unlimited issuance, increase scarcity, and encourage long-term holding behavior. However, this raises an important question: Is it appropriate for such a critical decision to be made purely through community voting? 🤔 Tokenomics and advanced economic design require expert knowledge and deep analysis. Yet many members of the community—including myself—are not economic experts. Most are basing their judgments on shared analysis rather than in-depth research. In this context, one must question whether decisions of such magnitude should be made through simple majority votes. While voting is democratic, democratic processes do not inherently guarantee expertise. This is especially true for changes to tokenomics, which—once implemented—are extremely difficult to reverse. Such decisions must be approached with great caution and based not just on public sentiment, but also on rigorous research, simulations, expert input, and a well-informed community. Introducing a supply cap on $DOT may well be a valid and potentially effective solution. However, the process by which such a decision is made must be carefully designed, thoroughly reviewed, and supported by open, inclusive dialogue that all stakeholders can understand and trust.
Not everyone casting a vote has that background and that’s a problem. These decisions shape the network’s future and are hard to reverse This isn’t about gatekeeping. It’s about making sure big moves are backed by research, models, and clear risk analysis. Let the community vote but let experts guide the conversation, present real data, and stress test each path. A supply cap could be the right step. But the process to get there matters just as much as the change itself.
Since changes in tokenomics are crucial to determining the future of DOT, I think voting should be used solely as an indicator of community opinion too. However, currency expansion must be driven by increases in aggregate demand and production, DOT must generate sufficient demand and profits to justify its current inflation. I believe there should be a swift and accurate discussion on whether a supply cap is appropriate for DOT or reducing inflation through rigorous analysis is appropriate.
🚨 Major tokenomics pivot incoming... Is capping $DOT supply with the Hard Pressure model the best way to restore holder confidence long-term? Community-driven decisions are powerful, but when it comes to economics—should experts weigh in more? Solid breakdown, this convo needs more eyeballs 🧠📊
