Just updated the proposal to:
Final proposal posted with all details of the onchain vote, along with the immutable IPFS reference doc link: [CVV005] Proposal: Enable Burning Mechanism
CC: @Markov
Great work Kara and team! Thanks!
Hi! I agree with you, enabling fee elimination would be great (and I support the idea, we can open a specific proposal for that). I just think one proposal doesn’t necessarily invalidate the other; it’s simply a step toward network optimization. Let’s take advantage of the available options that can be implemented now, since I don’t know if fee elimination is fully developed and integrated, so we can put it into production as soon as possible.
I’m maybe missing some tokenomic experience and skills but I don’t see how or whom this would help at all.
I also don’t see realistic numbers of how much could be burned/collected but if my impression is right it’s not worth it at all to enable or even further develop features here.
Here are some statistics from CSPR.live :
Last 3 Month period:
Last 1 Month period:
Ignoring those 2 outliers we have ~500 txs daily, let’s assume even 600 txs whereas the last 1 month is more on the 400-500ish side.
Here are some costs defined in the chainspec of 2.0.3 (upcoming 2.0.4 will most probably be the same):
Transfer: 0.1 CSPR (sending CSPR between wallets)
Delegate/Undelegate/Redelegate: 2.5 CSPR
So if my math is correct and even if there would be 600 [un|re]delegate txs for 2.5 CSPR each that would result in:
2.5 CSPR x 600 txs (per day) x 30 (days/1 month) = 45.000 CSPR (per month)
At the current price this is basically nothing to add to the “be sustainable CA fund” or to reduce the circulating supply. Also compared to almost 13.5B CSPR already so far it’s pretty much neglectable. Even for the last 5 years this would have burned/corrected 2.7M CSPR only.
Of course there are more expensive WASM calls/txs but checking the last 100 txs the majority (80) are transfers with 0.1 CSPR each.
I also highly doubt that this will attract more people or developers because at the current volume and price it has no effect.
Therefore I see this only as some idea to please the creator of this proposal and/or some delegators who believe or hope it would help but I really doubt it will because of above numbers.
There need to be much more txs and I don’t see them coming from this proposal.
Am I missing something?
I actually agree with your point: at current volumes, the burn has almost no material effect. In the short term, it’s mostly symbolic, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It shows that Casper is aligning with Ethereum or BNB in adopting a modern deflationary logic, which strengthens credibility.
The key value here is to put the infrastructure in place now. Even if today the impact on supply is marginal, tomorrow, with more dApps, DeFi or enterprise use cases generating heavier transactions, the mechanism will already be active and able to play a real role.
So yes, you’re right that adoption and transaction growth are the real challenges. But I see this proposal as laying a foundation: symbolic today, potentially powerful when the ecosystem scales.
Well said Marc_CSPR. Even if the immediate impact is symbolic, symbols matter. They shape perception and confidence. By activating the burn mechanism now, Casper signals maturity and readiness for future adoption. Once transaction volumes rise, the foundation will already be in place to amplify its effect. 100% aligned with this view.
