[RFC] RSR Health: Request For Comments

[0xJMG]

Cross posting this from the Telegram channel:

“Infinite mint” twists wording to imply worse intent. Disappointing to see.

It was never infinite mint in the RSR health proposal, but rather was “tail emissions governed by the community.”

What does a tail look like? for example, “5 billion RSR per year decaying at X% per year, for a total of 20 years”

The tail should be finite. Those emissions can be invested, given away or burned. By making these decisions up to locked RSR holders that are funding the long term project, they become owners in the outcome, rather than subjects of the outcome. Big difference.

But whether its community governing “tail emissions curve” or “the fixed supply RSR treasury”, you can achieve a lot of the same “community ownership” in both.

The main tradeoffs between them are twofold:

(1) “tail emissions” improves the “metrics legibility” issue that disfavors Reserve compared to its peers - investors and talent will go to the best projects (mission, product, metrics) and…

(2) Communities cling to fixed supply, a vestige from Bitcoin’s birth, like sacred doctrine. But RSR is not BTC.

Based on the call and Nevin’s post, the community appears to prioritize
(2) > (1). The phrase “infinite mint” frames the debate in a way that steers support almost automatically. Once that label sticks, the outcome is preloaded.

Can accept that if its the path. Eager to hear answers to the above questions to lose the loop on the full package.

[Fortis]

In my opinion team diluted $RSR token bad enough and did the opposite to its own project on what they claimed trying to achieve aka FIGHT INFLATION. I don’t even understand the stubbornness on the BURN it self, there is plenty of $RSR team has in circulation that they can use for future growth. They need to focus on adoption, bringing in external capital, pitching to institutions and focusing on RSR token price, cuz ultimately price of the token will make up for the amount that has been burned. Unless they dont believe in their own strength and the backup plan is just to dilute as much as they can just to keep going at the expanse of retail investors who funded the project for 6 years but has not gotten much in return. For context here is the graph that shows how bad dilution was this cycle. This is coingecko Marketcap chart. Look at the MC of the project vs price of the token. In 2021 price of the token was 0.11c at 1.45B MC, this cycle price of the token got to 0.027c at almost the same 1.4B MC. That is beyond BAD. SO basically if team did not release so much into circulations since 2024 we could have touched pretty much last cycle top. Imagine how much hype, adoption, word of mouth and free advertisement from community that would have gotten with the context of DTF launches, ETH+ success and so on, the project would of been 10 time healthier. I dont even get why they did what they did specially knowing that every other project in the past cycles that messed with unlocks just died, could of just unlocked some at the top at 0.11c to fund future growth. I guess just poor management

[Raphael_Anode]

Hi Fortis! First, thanks for coming on the forum to express your discontent.
Some of the issues you raised have been addressed.
The total issuance of additional RSR entering circulation has only been 1.5% last year. That is rather little compared to most other projects.

However, I can totally understand the frustration you feel around RSR price. I felt the same, and not just about RSR price, but many other tokens as well.

Recently there has been a decided shift in how ABC Labs and Confusion Capital operate. There’s a renewed sense of urgency and a dedicated and dogged pursuit of a way forward for all.

This is the opposite of many other projects in similar situations, where the team tries to lock in as much exit liquidity for themselves as possible.
Please participate in our DTF governance calls and stay tuned for community AMAs where you can learn more about the way ahead.

[Fortis]

Where is Nevin ? What is this ignorance, he was trying to look all decent, honest and accountable as a project leader and in a mean time just ghosted all the community, does not do any changes, ignores all the proposals, says nothing about the burn. YOU HAVE ENOUGH $RSR FOR FUTURE already unlocked. Do something cuz the damage and silence are making it worse. Cheeze I ve been with this project since 2019, was my highest conviction, in a mean time the team just milked retail for funding and did not do any growth nor market fit and now all went in to the bushes.

[Raphael_Anode]

Hi Fortis! Could you express what exactly it is you’re looking for? I might be able to find that information in the published responses so far.

Discourse is horrible at making information easy to digest and to find. It was never meant to be a public forum for community sensemaking, but a triage and knowledge sharing tool for tech support.

[Mosq71]

---

I rarely speak up on social media, and this is my first post since joining the project back in 2019.

A bit of background: I discovered Reserve by chance through a social media discussion about equities. I made a significant investment at the time, when the price sat around $0.0020–0.0025 and the total supply was roughly 7 billion tokens. I’ve added to my position at various points since then.

Fast forward six years — the price is still around $0.0020, but the supply has grown to approximately 65 billion tokens. That’s a dilution of nearly 10x, and it’s a number that’s becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

I’ve believed in Nevin and the team throughout, and I still do. But after six years, that conviction requires more than faith — it needs catalysts.

A meaningful one, in my view, would be visible progress on the token burn discussion. RFC-1269 generated real excitement when it was proposed, but the community has gone quiet since. So my question is simple: where do we stand, and when can we expect an on-chain vote?

For long-term holders like myself, clarity on this would go a long way.

[Fortis]

I have to, been with Reserve since 2019. You know what makes me sad? Where is @Nevin, he has not responded for a long time, he has ignored all proposals about the burn, his actions diluted investors like us by 10 fold and he is not taking responsibility for his actions, In my opinion he is a poor leader because the whole proposal of Reserve was false. He promised the fight of inflation and in a mean time inflated the $RSR by 10X, he is not considering any discussion on the burn, he is basically paying salaries out of our pockets using inflation of the token as mechanism. In a mean time we as investors get nothing. BTW I dont think RFC - 1269 will happen. He said him self many times that all they are considering is performance based unlocks not burn. So say goodbye to this dreams. He will continue to dilute. Ahh and also ignoring the community and this discussion was on purpose. Chicken like behavior lol. So much for being transparent, honest and mindful of his community.

[zeb]

Most recent update from his side [RFC] RSR Unlocking Milestone Plan

Not endorsing just sharing

[nevin.freeman]

If RSR minting were added and the schedule were set, wouldn’t the max number just be interpreted as the max supply and lead to the same metric situation we have now? The reason I used the term infinite is that the only way to avoid a “max supply” metric would be to eliminate any fixed schedule and max amount. Am I missing something there?

[nevin.freeman]

Thanks Zeb, came here to post the same link.

In response to this discussion started by James, CC and ABC have so far:

1. Paused emissions while reconsidering: https://x.com/reserveprotocol/status/2012324000308011389
2. Endorsed a community-organized delegate program and delegated RSR stake to six initial delegates: [RFC] Reserve Delegate Program - Trial Run
3. Begun posting detailed bi-weekly updates to operate more transparently (see our X account)
4. Begun sharing quarterly financial reports: https://x.com/reserveprotocol/status/2052854952213766271

We have now proposed a concrete way forward for improving upon the current BTC-shaped emissions curve. Please check it out and share your opinion here: [RFC] RSR Unlocking Milestone Plan

[0xJMG]

Hey @nevin apologies on my delayed response. Also have seen your RSR Unlocking Milestone proposal and will respond to that separately.

If RSR minting were added to the schedule it would look like ETH or SOL on CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap, etc.

ETH and SOL are growing their supply each year.

CoinGecko “Total Supply” definition: Total Supply = Onchain supply - burned tokens The amount of coins that have already been created, minus any coins that have been burned (removed from circulation). It is comparable to outstanding shares in the stock market.

And its worth reviewing the FDV definition here as well:

Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV) = Current Price x Total Supply. Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV) is the theoretical market capitalization of a coin if the entirety of its supply is in circulation, based on its current market price. The FDV value is theoretical as increasing the circulating supply of a coin may impact its market price. Also depending on the tokenomics, emission schedule or lock-up period of a coin’s supply, it may take a significant time before its entire supply is released into circulation.

If there were an RSR burn, it would immediately impact lowering the FDV metric that many allocators and some builders use as first pass screening to evaluate opportunities. The FDV metrics feeds many valuation algorithms and mental shortcuts. Hence solving 3.1. Excess Authorized Supply. (Metric Distortion)

Also I think its important to reiterate: You don’t have to add minting to the schedule today. Cross that bridge when its needed, in 3, 5 or 10 years, etc. All RSR stakeholders will have same incentives in X years to do whats best for the project “then.”

[nevin.freeman]

Ok, so if we had no cap, we would have the ∞ symbol instead of a cap. (My choice of words was not all that different from the main aggregators.) In your prior post you had suggested:

What does a tail look like? for example, “5 billion RSR per year decaying at X% per year, for a total of 20 years”

That implies having a cap, and I was confused since it seems like your goal on this point is to not have one. But by not having one, I am nott he only one who would frame the limit as infinite – CMC and CG already do that.

I get that eliminating the max would mean the FDV metric would be 38% lower. At present prices, it would be $120M instead of $192M.

For the folks you are saying pass over a crypto project because of these metrics, is it:

1. “That FDV number is unreasonably high for the value they are producing, the market won’t believe it’s worth more than that going forward, therefore pass”
2. “The % of coins not yet circulating is too high, they might dump and nuke the price, therefore pass”

I am personally more concerned about #2 than #1. The 38% difference just isn’t that big of a difference when it comes to FDV as a metric. The concern about 38% of supply being dumped seems like a much bigger deal. The current proposal I’ve circulated should go a long way to addressing that amongst engaged parties, though I can see how passers-by wouldn’t ever get the memo.

[0xJMG]

Nevin - I see what you mean on ∞ vs. capped supply, especially as it relates to CoinGecko. Thanks for flagging that.

To my knowledge, the more precise language for ETH and SOL is not “infinite,” even if CoinGecko’s display can imply that.

The more common framing I’ve seen is:

• ETH uses “issuance and burn” or “adaptive net issuance.”
• SOL uses a “declining inflation schedule.”

I can see how semantics get messy here, especially without much public math discourse around options like:

• “X_amount RSR emitted per year, capped at Y years.”
• “X_amount RSR emitted per year, perpetually.” (or use the SOL or ETH language)
• “Preserve X_amount RSR for five years of capital needs, burn Y_amount RSR, leave the supply cap as-is, and reevaluate in 2032.”

In my view, the math matters more than the label, and when we have conviction, the former will inform the latter (for marketing, etc.)

Regarding FDV, it matters most in context. The market does not just ask, “Is this number high?” It asks, “Is this asset cheaper, stronger, or more efficient than its peers?”

Table 1 from the initial Oct 2025 proposal (easy shortcut link) shows where RSR ranks on TVL/FDV. Unfortunately, it sits on the bottom (in Oct 2025, and today).

This contextual comparison is similar to how profesisonal allocators use P/E, P/S, and other ratios to compare JPM, HOOD, COIN, and other investable assets. Digital assets valuation is moving in the same direction as traditional financial markets, just as .com businesses did in the 2000s.

For a a number of thoughtful discussions dissecting options and tradeoffs, see https://dba.xyz/ (discussion on HYPE) and https://www.theia.investments/ (discussion on TIA) to start.

Related: You might find it useful to run quantitative polls across different segments, such as general X users, confirmed RSR holders, and confirmed RSR whales. Sharing the results should help clarify conviction.

Here is an example:

Fwiw, while HYPE did not burn the full 45% that was proposed in Sept 2025 (link), they did burn 13% of supply in Dec 2025, and in just 5 months, its been up-only:

• Hyperliquid user adoption: up 20% (TokenTerminal)
• HYPE token price: up 70% (CoinGecko)

Stands out because much of DeFi has been negative over the same period.
I am not making a case for burning to impact token price, just acknowledging what is.

Lastly, in your response, I appreciated this succinct framing of builder/allocator concerns. I think both are true:

1. “That FDV number is unreasonably high for the value they are producing, the market won’t believe it’s worth more than that going forward, therefore pass”
2. “The % of coins not yet circulating is too high, they might dump and nuke the price, therefore pass”

Different investors will have different weighting biases on these. But they are both formidable issues!

I recognized a while ago that the RSR burn is just not in Reserve’s DNA at current situation, but thanks for letting me clarify in this conversation as it might come in handy down the line.

Reviewing and thinking through the NARR gated unlocking proposal now and will share once thoughts are organized.

[0xJMG]

Gm Reserve Rangers, in case you missed it @blue posted results of NPS Survey. Take a look, ask questions, leave a suggestion.

Power Gauge Season #1 Results

[image] The DRF recently ran a Net Promoter Score (NPS) survey, dubbed the RSR x DTF Power Gauge. NPS measures how willing people are to recommend a product or brand to others, which makes it a useful signal of trust, satisfaction, and conviction. Think of it as a map that helps show whether we’re headed in the right direction. Below are the results. Executive summary This survey is best read as a sentiment pulse from the current Reserve community, not as a general-market demand study. Of the…

While RSR health needs work, it contains the potential for greatness.