### Why I Voted No on the 30% Supply Reduction - Presenting a Sustainable Approach to Supply Reduction

Regarding the recent proposal on supply reduction, I voted against it because a 30% reduction is too drastic if we are considering the long-term game. A more solid approach would be a recurring burn of 5-10% every 2-4 quarters. This would not only be a recurring event but also prevent the appearance of a drastic measure solely to pump the price. No offense meant, but a gradual reduction seems more sustainable and strategic.

Why a Gradual Approach is Better:

  1. Long-Term Stability: A gradual reduction ensures that the token supply decreases steadily over time, promoting long-term stability. A sudden 30% reduction could create market volatility and uncertainty among holders and potential investors.

  2. Sustained Value Growth: By implementing a recurring burn of 5-10% every 2-4 quarters, the token supply is consistently managed, supporting sustained value growth rather than a short-term price spike. This approach aligns with the long-term interests of the community and the project’s sustainability.

  3. Market Confidence: Gradual supply reduction measures signal a well-thought-out strategy to the market. This can enhance investor confidence, as it demonstrates a commitment to sustainable growth rather than quick gains.

  4. Avoiding Drastic Measures: Drastic supply reductions may appear as attempts to manipulate the market for short-term benefits. A gradual approach avoids this perception, fostering trust and credibility within the community and among potential investors.

  5. Strategic Planning: Regular burns allow for better strategic planning and adjustments based on market conditions. This flexibility ensures that the supply reduction strategy remains relevant and effective over time.

  6. Community Support: A recurring, moderate burn rate is more likely to gain community support. It involves the community in a long-term vision and allows for periodic assessments and feedback, ensuring the strategy aligns with the evolving needs and goals of the project.

Implementation Strategy:

  1. Regular Assessments: Establish a schedule for regular assessments of the supply reduction strategy, involving community input and data-driven analysis to determine the optimal burn rates and intervals.

  2. Transparency: Maintain transparency by regularly updating the community on the supply reduction process, its impact, and future plans. This builds trust and encourages active participation in the project’s development.

  3. Adaptive Measures: Be prepared to adapt the strategy based on market feedback and changing conditions. Flexibility is key to ensuring the supply reduction remains effective and aligned with the project’s goals.

In conclusion, while the idea of reducing the token supply is valid, the method of implementation is crucial. A gradual, recurring burn strategy is more sustainable and strategic, promoting long-term growth and stability while avoiding the pitfalls of drastic measures. This approach not only supports the project’s long-term vision but also fosters community trust and market confidence.

4 Likes

All valid points. Well said.

1 Like