Thank you Nevin for the thoughtful response. Sharing a few points to keep our work maximally productive. Since the list is lengthy, I’ve numbered here just to keep track myself.
-
The “ownership” pillar felt absent in your post. It’s the core of my RSR health proposal so I want to lead with this. My argument is stronger community ownership will enhance RSR health. Its more important than any other single issue imo. Recently, Thiel’s line circulating is a good reminder: “Without a stake in the system, they turn against it.”
-
Love the idea of one big beautiful bill to make RSR great again. Your steady engagement while handling daily ops things and juggling everything else is genuinely appreciated.
-
If farmers are dumping RSR this may be a nod toward they think its overvalued (re: FDV discussion), not worth holding onto. Good litmus test! I know a number of institutional investors that dump and others that hold or even buy more in ecosystems they care about. How can Reserve engage the latter, get them to the table to invest and build with us?
-
Appreciate you calling out the “Can’t be evil > don’t be evil” principle, twice. If somehow the result of this exercise moves us significantly into that direction, I see this as a big win.
-
I am a bit surprised to be credited so strongly with the Bitcoin curve idea now. The concept was discussed during Monetarium, but I had already resigned from ABC Labs weeks before Monetarium 1, so the attribution feels unexpected. To clarify, the Bitcoin curve was not my idea, but it did seem a better idea than its predecessor. So I would actually call that progress. And I agree with you, it was a good meme. We can treat the past year as a beta test that clarified the concept’s weaknesses. Again, progress!
-
I don’t think it was a mistake not hardcoding the emissions bitcoin curve. Sometimes the universe works in mysterious ways, and we are better for it. Also had it been hardcoded, it would not have addressed practically any of the issues raised in the RSR Health proposal. We dodged a bullet!
-
On Bitcoin transparency, adaptability and proof of work distribution. Anyone can look at who competed for, and performed the SHA256 puzzle work and who received the rewards. Its not one big monolithic number, its more like an index of activity that gives people something to talk about, something to compete for. That’s the transparency and proof of work distribution part. Thanks for flagging adaptability. I was referring to Bitcoin’s security but that term is a little misplaced here – my bad.
-
Imo, this statement is both true and problematic “The distaste for the Bitcoin analogy is, in my opinion, mostly downstream of people being unhappy about the price. If demand for RSR had grown this year and the price were up, people would be complementing us on the genius move to emulate Bitcoin.” This implies to me we might mask fundamental health issues with a seasonal speculative boom and things will be ok. We don’t have product market fit yet. There is very little new bid in the market. The boom we all want may not come, and if it does, how long before it ebbs? We cannot predict what the market will do in the future. I suggest we focus on things we do have control over, upstream changes can we make to improve fundamental health, today.
-
However we approach RSR emissions, I hope we can try to think in a first principles fashion of what we would create if we were starting over today. We are currently in a PvP market for attention, with less than 2% of earth transacting crypto on a monthly basis. 5 year old promises won’t matter to the future coming 98% who will have many ways to invest their attention and resources. They want the best of what is available today.
-
Is 100B RSR high, or low, or just right? Tbh, it feels like saying “XRP is going to $20 because it’s only $2 today.” On its own, how can anyone tell if 100B is good or bad? It’s a number without context, without performance. I believe we should be asking ourselves, compared to what? This is why investors look at value metrics like TVL/FDV or P/E ratios and compare them to other opportunities that seek their time and capital. I have advocated for TVL/FDV, but maybe there are better value ratios? What we know about the 100B is that one party controls a material share, and professional investors have flagged this concern for years.
-
I hear you on concerns about mintable RSR being unattractive. Still, it’s worth testing the idea with fresh institutional and activist capital to understand what would draw them into the ecosystem. Existing holders have endured a long grind and may not drive new momentum.
-
Agree a hard fork would be messy and cumbersome, but we’re already living in a messy situation. Counterpoint: marketing opportunity. It’s also an energizing storyline that draws attention and revives ecosystems. SKY and MetaDAO and others have leaned into it. I’m hearing privately that several other teams are exploring similar.
-
I think this is huge: “engage the whole community of RSR holders to personally introduce DTFs to their friends and family whenever they ask which crypto to buy, then report back on whether a DTF turned out to be the right fit for them or not.” Amen and agree!
-
Get that people are upset but we can’t control the RSR price from five years ago, or even today. We can control RSR’s health in today’s opportunity and competitive landscape. With 98 percent of the world still not using crypto monthly, we have a shot at getting Reserve into the global consideration set. I’d recommend we focus on what we have control over going forward.
-
On product-market fit for DTFs: can RSR accelerate it? Why or why not? I am arguing here for a cultural change that if RSR is woven more deeply into the story and Reserve’s edge, the conviction shows up everywhere. And if RSR isn’t the edge, we should get aligned on what is. I’m wrong plenty, but aligned clarity on Reserve’s edge would be something worth spreading with friends and family.
-
Realy excited for the next launch!
Thank you for considering.