Hey Agus Liserra here, Reserve Head of Finance. Nice to meet you all! Assuming 80 bps going to the ecosystem in total — which varies depending on the pace of minting/burns in DTFs with minting fees, as well as fees from new DTFs — we estimate that around $300M–$400M in TVL would be needed to reach the $2.5M NARR metric.
3 Likes
Thank you for your comment. I think that would be a comparison between flow and stock. The main discussion, as Nevin mentioned, is based on whether $1 invested in the project generates a sufficient rate of return in the future.
Within the Reserve team, we believe that it does, and that the first substantial signal that would allow both the internal team and the community to reach a high degree of conviction is the milestone we shared: $2.5M NARR.
Interesting idea, I think it could be productive to track this relationship. Thanks @azkuel!
Your formula simplifies to: (Circulating RSR) / (NARR).
We could track the relative change in each, i.e. (Growth in circulating RSR) / (Growth in NARR).
I point to the ratio of change because it would show us how much RSR we are adding to circulation per new dollar of net annually recurring revenue, so it would show how efficient we were being relative to past periods it was tracked for.
This could be tracked on various timescales:
- Part of quarterly ecosystem financial reporting (by tracking RSR tokens actually sold/paid out in comp/spent on partnerships/used as incentives/etc)
- Part of milestone assessment, either in advance or when looking back
For example on the second approach, the newly proposed milestone can be thought of as:
+3,000,000,000 / 2,500,000 = 1,200 RSR unlocked per new dollar of NARR.
One could quibble with this though, in that (a) the 3B is what’s unlocked to pursue the next milestone, not this one, and (b) we are starting at negative NARR, not zero.
Still though, quantifying the amount of real, meaningful growth per RSR token that’s added to circulation seems like a good idea in one form or another.
CC @agustin
3 Likes
I really like this idea. Allowing people to track whether unlocks have been increasing NARR per RSR is a great way to reduce FUD, as this is one of the main concerns people have with unlocks in the first place. I’m generally in favor of the milestone proposal, but would advocate for tracking this metric alongside it.
2 Likes
Also important to point out that the RSR don’t hit the market all at that moment, but can be used to fund team activities from then on.
1 Like
Please answer and respond to my counter proposal. Do not just disregard it. It was liked over 15+ times on telegram as well by the community
Thank you @Teeb for your thoughts. We listen to all opinions. We should keep in mind that there is no solution that is optimal from every perspective.
I think one important point to mention regarding the use of RSR is that a considerable portion of ABC’s budget is directly denominated in RSR. For that reason — in addition to the fact that we will always be strategic in how we manage the treasury — those expenses cannot always be accelerated over time.
Regarding the concern about adding a price KPI to the milestone, we have thought about it and discussed it internally. However, the token price is not something we control, and our intention is not to optimize for the short term at the expense of RSR’s long-term sustainability and performance.
We do have a high degree of conviction that, by meeting milestones associated with real value creation, the RSR price will follow that trajectory. Unfortunately, though, that relationship is not deterministic.
3 Likes
This is another Antshares / NEO you guys could not get us to project market feet in 6 years and been denominating RSR holders, along with inflationary tokenomics (I addressed this numerous times and Nevin always ignored it, how was your sales pitch and project vision as to fight inflation while your own tokenomics DO NOT SUPORT THE THESIS??? this is double standards. Even now your proposal is getting 2.5M of project revenue but unlock 6M worth of tokens!!! This is absurd. Not willing to change anything, all your arguments are: we have to have runway, but we are so bad at business that we cannot get external capital flow, can not get project revenue. BUT WHAT WE CAN DO is dump the token to fund ourself. Good job team. Anyways, I am out of this discussions, it’s a waist of time.
No comment. You didn’t even address my proposal directly. 50% of unlocked token burn as middle ground is what from Reserve team?
Yes, we are taking your comments into consideration. When proposing the first milestone and the amount of RSR to be unlocked, we carefully considered the current level of the treasury and the project’s future needs. We believe this mechanism and these specific figures are appropriate for Reserve’s long-term sustainability.
Please, refrain from this type of energy. Frustration can be tough, I get it. Just have a bit of respect, respectfully.
Nevin isn’t ignoring any of this. Unfortunately holders think otherwise. It’s good to have you here. Consider, negative posts feed the very beasts you want to tame. The future is bright, don’t worry.
The NARR-Gated Unlocks proposal is an interesting metric and framework. I’m not convinced it improves RSR health in its current posture.
The proposal appears to remain an offchain, unenforceable social contract where “Confusion Capital would retain the right to deviate from this plan.”
That structure is perfectly normal for a centralized company accountable to a board and investors.
But blockchain systems tend to absorb unenforceable social contracts as memes. The Slow Wallet and Slower Wallet followed similar patterns.
- Slow Wallet, 2022–24: “The new Slow Wallet never made a withdrawal until the transfer to the Slower Wallet”
- Slower Wallet / Bitcoin-style emissions, 2024–26: “Most unlocked RSR has stayed in the treasury; on net, Confusion Capital has been a buyer of RSR”
Parts were fulfilled, parts misunderstood, and over time they created distraction, ambiguity, and unnecessary toxicity. Its hard, and maybe futile, to predict the future when there are no constraints, especially to a fractionally vested community that is not in the day-to-day loop.
This is not a critique of those efforts. It is an observation about a recurring dynamic: blockchain projects that rely on promises inherit trust-debt. Over time, that debt can compound unproductive and toxic discourse, or worse. Arguably creating self inflicted headaches.
Social contracts can work early in a project, or later in a mature PMF phase. They become lower productive utility after eight years without PMF.
The Oct. 2025 RSR Health proposal pushed for stronger onchain ownership and transparency, improved comparative metrics legibility, and to compound community-as-capital and attract more capital and allocators. The seven month discourse has been enlightening.
Reserve is pursuing a different path and that is not necessarily a bad thing, its just different, hopefully better! Related: the 2026 PMF efforts, communications improvements, and Top100 inclusion efforts have all been executed refreshingly well.
This has me observing and sanity checking all options.
I respect the steadfast commitment to central control, even though I proposed the opposite. At this point, I am wondering to what value (or painful cost as history has shown) is it to socialize how things will work in the future as if they are community-governed?
Both paths, central and decentralized, have strengths, but straddling the middle is unnecessarily messy, something I would never recommend to a founder.
This is a good reset moment to push the chosen path even further.
2 Likes
Early investor here since the very early Huobi days, around 2018–2019.
I was one of the biggest proponents of Reserve the moment I read the project’s original whitepaper. I invested a decent amount and even got a few people onboard as well. If we met on the street back then, eventually you would hear me talk about Reserve.
I’ve since sold all my holdings, but recently started checking back in to see what’s happened after being away for a few years.
I became pretty disillusioned when Nevin announced that Reserve Treasury would continue inflating the token supply, heavily diluting retail holders. A lot of retail investors made their feelings known on Twitter back in the day, but because they held only a small allocation compared to insiders, their opinions ultimately didn’t matter much.
From the outside looking in, there seemed to be no real checks and balances. And to me, no checks and balances means concentrated power and the potential for unilateral decisions that can hurt the broader community.
That said, after spending a few hours catching up on everything tech-wise as of May 17, 2026, it’s clear that a lot of technical progress has been made over the past few years. The issue is that I’m still not convinced the tech progress is actually moving the needle yet.
It feels like Reserve has tactically pivoted multiple times in pursuit of the end goal: becoming a reserve currency backed by a basket of assets. That’s exactly what startups are supposed to do, and I genuinely commend them for adapting. But despite all of that, it still doesn’t feel like there’s product-market fit yet.
To me, PMF is one of those things where if you have to ask whether you’ve reached it, you probably haven’t.
Looking back at the early crypto days — BTC, ETH, XRP, NEO, XMR, and later Solana during the 2017–2018 cycle — one pattern stands out:
The stronger the price action became, the more attention the projects attracted → which led to more ecosystem development → which then created even more price growth and mainstream adoption, even when the underlying tech was still inefficient or immature.
Even Luna-Terra, which eventually collapsed, saw real everyday usage because the explosive price action attracted enormous attention. People wanted to use it. Developers were willing to build around it. Friction disappeared because momentum itself became the driver. Metcalfe’s Law worked heavily in their favor. I am not advocating it was a good project. I am only mere stating people lined up to use it because of the enormous attention it received.
That’s why I can’t help but wonder whether Reserve — or Nevin specifically — made it harder for the project to find PMF through years of continuous token inflation.
In my opinion, they drove away a portion of the early adopters — the very people who were willing to promote Reserve every single day for free. Yet after seven years, those supporters have seen little to no meaningful return, while token supply continued to inflate in favour of institutional investors without visible growth to justify it.
That becomes an extremely difficult sell.
ABOUT THE UNLOCKING PLAN:
This unlocking plan still doesn’t fully solve the long-term token inflation problem. However, I do think it’s a first step in the right direction.
I also commend Reserve for the plan of displaying what the tokens unlocked have been used for and to be used for etc.
My biggest concern remains the concentration of voting power, which Reserve still overwhelmingly controls. For me personally, that’s very hard to buy into because it directly conflicts with the philosophy of decentralization.
To copy from Teeb the original author of the statements below
1. Dual-trigger milestones — revenue AND price.
NARR alone isn’t enough. A protocol hitting $2.5M revenue while RSR is still at cycle lows hasn’t demonstrated holder value — it’s demonstrated operational progress. These aren’t the same thing. Milestone 1 should require NARR ≥ $2.5M AND RSR price sustained above a community-agreed level for 30 days. Aligns team incentives properly. Ensures unlocks happen when dilution impact is lowest and strategic spend goes furthest. My recommendation is minimum 0.01.
With a slight idea added in to modify your original idea.
We do a video call, everyone would need to put camera on, a minimum participants of community required to cast vote(must be wallet verified)which forces everyone to get involved in the game or forever hold their peace since they didnt bother to attend.
2**. Compress the distribution window to 12 months. Use them or lose them.**
5 Likes
- We support the shift to NARR-based milestone unlocking. It is the right structure.
- We ask Confusion Capital to also burn at least 50% of the remaining locked supply — not instead of the milestone system, but alongside it. The burn is not only financial. It is a signal.
- We urge the team to move aggressively on business development and market presence. The product exists. The infrastructure is ready. The right partners need to be sought out, not waited for.
1 Like
Fully agree with Teeb on all three points.
Especially the dual-trigger. NARR alone measures protocol health — not holder value. Combining revenue with a sustained price floor is the only honest way to align team incentives with the community.
And the 100B token supply is a 2019 decision. It’s 2026. Burn the excess, signal conviction, and let the market respond. No more waiting.
Yes — with Teeb’s modifications.
2 Likes
I understand the intuition behind adding RSR price as a milestone. Ultimately, token holders care about value creation, and price is the most visible expression of that. But we don’t think using RSR price as a direct unlock condition is the right mechanism.
The main reason is that price is not fully within the team’s control. It is affected by broader crypto market cycles, liquidity conditions, exchange flows, macro sentiment, speculation, and short-term volatility. Tying operational funding to a market price could create the wrong incentives: it may push the team to optimize for short-term price action rather than long-term protocol value.
There is also a reflexivity problem. If unlocks only happen after price appreciation, the market may start trading around the unlock itself. That can create unnecessary speculation, manipulation risk, and volatility precisely around the moment when the project needs predictability to fund growth. In weaker markets, it could also prevent the team from accessing resources even if the protocol is making real progress on adoption, revenue, integrations, and product development.
In our view, unlock milestones should be based on things the project can actually execute and be accountable for: revenue, product adoption, protocol usage, transparency around spending, and the impact of that spending on Reserve’s long-term trajectory. Those are the areas where the team can be judged fairly.
That does not mean price is irrelevant. Price matters. Holder value matters. But price should be an outcome of successful execution, not the input that determines whether execution can be funded.
That is why our proposal is to make unlocks tied to measurable business and protocol fundamentals, while adding strong transparency on net RSR BUY/SELL by CC, what results it is expected to produce, and whether the spending actually contributes to long-term RSR health.
So I agree with the spirit of aligning unlocks with holder value, but I don’t think a price trigger is the cleanest or healthiest way to do it. It risks introducing short-term incentives and market reflexivity into a process that should be focused on durable value creation.
2 Likes
I really appreciate the open and transparent discussion about this. Besides everything that has already been said I keep struggling with the following: why 3 billion? Given the current RSR price it represents about $5M. What if announced DTFs prove to be succesful and RSR price increases 10-fold the coming months. Would you then effectively want to unlock $50M? Why? The amount unlocked is not tied to a defined next milestone, so it seems an arbitrary number/amount. I would propose to make the amount unlocked also dependant on the RSR price at that time. For instance: a maximum of 3 billion will be unlocked, but will be reduced so that the USD value it represents will not exceed $10M (just making up a number). Perhaps even consider burning what was not needed from the initl 3 billion to actieve the max USD value. Still an arbitrary number/amount perhaps, but one with a order of magnitude that is far more predictable.
7 Likes
R72, this is one of the sharpest points raised in this thread.
Unlocking 3 billion RSR at $0.0017 is ~$5M. At $0.017 it’s $50M. The milestone is the same — the dilution impact is not. Fixing the unlock in token terms rather than USD terms is an inconsistency that nobody has addressed yet.
A USD-capped unlock with a burn of the remainder is a cleaner, fairer mechanism. It rewards price appreciation instead of punishing it. And the burn component is an added bonus — the better the project performs, the more tokens get permanently removed.
Strong support for this modification. It should be part of the final proposal.
4 Likes
Thanks @nevin.freeman and @agustin for putting this together and engaging closely with community feedback.
I’m directionally very aligned with this proposal. Moving away from a Bitcoin-shaped emissions curve toward a framework linked to ecosystem health through NARR feels like a clear improvement.
While I’m glad this has been brought to the community for discussion, I think it remains difficult for governors to fully scrutinise some aspects with the information currently available. For example, why 3B RSR was selected versus 2B or 4B. I assume internal modelling exists around runway and growth assumptions, and I appreciate some of that may be commercially sensitive, but limited visibility makes it harder for the community to move beyond trusting the team and independently supporting the decision.
That said, I think @0xJMG raises an important point around trust debt.
The community is being asked to place significant trust in the team here. Not only in how the 3B RSR runway is managed, but also in future milestone selection and spending classifications, such as incentive spend versus cost of acquisition.
The fixed 3B figure also introduces another layer of uncertainty. We have no idea today what 3B RSR represents in dollar terms at milestone one. If RSR appreciates 10x before reaching the milestone, a ~$5M unlock quickly becomes a ~$50M unlock. Again, this requires confidence that if the value of that runway expands significantly, it will drive larger and more ambitious NARR targets for future milestones so the spending horizon remains appropriate rather than simply creating a larger treasury allocation than required.
I don’t think there is a realistic path where something like this becomes entirely trustless today. There are simply too many unknowns around protocol growth, market conditions and future ecosystem requirements. Each milestone should provide more data and allow the framework to become progressively tighter over time.
While significant trust is inevitably being placed on the team if we move toward an RSR milestone unlock framework, I don’t think that is inherently a bad thing. Early stage protocols will always involve some degree of trust because not every future variable can be codified today.
What matters is that this trust is respected. If the community is willing to place that confidence in the team, then transparency has to become a core tenet of how Reserve operates going forward and must be pursued relentlessly. Over time, the goal should be to progressively reduce the amount of trust required rather than continually asking for more.
There are also some fairly low-hanging opportunities here. If we move forward with this proposal, protocol financial reports will inevitably become extremely significant because they effectively become the scorecard for ecosystem health and milestone progression. A live dashboard should provide the community with much more up-to-date visibility into metrics and milestone progress, but I don’t think this should replace dedicated quarterly reports. The dashboard and reports should complement one another, with the dashboard providing real-time transparency and quarterly reports providing broader context and discussion. However, these reports are currently nested within broader quarterly community updates. I think we should be much prouder of them and give them a dedicated section on the forum so they are easy to find, particularly for users less familiar with navigating the forum.
4 Likes