No one here is asking for just the RSR price trigger. It’s revenue + price trigger. Second, this is post a 50% burn of unlocked supply and aligning to R72, if price trigger is 0.01, as I suggested as minimum, why would we unlock 3B $30M worth of tokens, effectively, if only $5M are needed let’s say (CC would need to illustrate exactly where the funds are being used and why can’t you just use your 24B treasury?), rest should be burned. This is considering the revenue target is met and unlock shouldn’t exceed the revenue target..therefore $2.5M.
1 Like
Agreed, tried to communicate this above in my counter proposal but perhaps the message got lost. I’ll reiterate again, CC/Reserve has a treasury of 24B RSR Tokens, please help me understand if the price of RSR exceeds 10 cents, what is Reserve going to use the EXISTING $2.1B USD DOLLARS on?
I’m sorry guys but I just can’t fathom the basic math here and the role of the RSR token. If Reserve is actually working on bringing utility and value into RSR which I can see they are trying to. Getting to even mid-way of ATH is worth 1B USD for their 24B token treasury.
How and why is there a discussion to unlock the 34B is beyond me. Not a single top 100 crypto projects (aside from 3/4 meme coins) have close to 100B tokens supply.
I’m tired of this.
Agreed, tried to communicate this above in my counter proposal but perhaps the message got lost. I’ll reiterate again, CC/Reserve has a treasury of 24B RSR Tokens, please help me understand if the price of RSR exceeds 10 cents, what is Reserve going to use the EXISTING $2.1B USD DOLLARS on?
I’m sorry guys but I just can’t fathom the basic math here and the role of the RSR token. If Reserve is actually working on bringing utility and value into RSR which I can see they are trying to. Getting to even mid-way of ATH is worth 1B USD for their 24B token treasury.
How and why is there a discussion to unlock the 34B is beyond me. Not a single top 100 crypto projects (aside from 3/4 meme coins) have close to 100B tokens supply.
I’m tired of this.
1 Like
Thanks @R72, @Mosq71, @ham and @Teeb I think the concern is fair, but I’d frame the tradeoff a bit differently.
A meaningful portion of Reserve’s expected expenses and incentives are denominated in RSR, not purely in USD. That is one of the reasons the proposed unlock is specified in RSR terms. If the budget were instead defined only in USD terms, then a lower RSR price would imply unlocking more RSR to fund the same USD amount. That feels like the wrong direction: it would mean more token dilution precisely when the token is weaker.
By setting a maximum unlock in RSR terms, the dilution side of the equation is bounded. 3B RSR is 3B RSR regardless of price. If the RSR price is higher when the milestone is reached, the USD value of that allocation is higher, but the token-denominated dilution is not larger than what was proposed. If the RSR price is lower, the framework does not automatically increase the number of tokens unlocked.
This also matters for incentives. The team and ecosystem are strongly aligned toward RSR being worth as much as possible by the time any milestone is reached. A higher RSR price means any unlocked RSR can fund more growth with less actual token usage over time. A lower RSR price makes the same RSR budget less effective. So the incentive is not to reach the milestone with a low token price; it is the opposite.
That said, I agree with the underlying point that if 3B RSR represents a much larger USD amount by the time Milestone 1 is reached, the team should be especially clear about how much is actually needed, how much is actually used, and what results that spending is expected to produce. Unlocking should be treated as authorization and maximum capacity, not an obligation to spend the full amount.
Last, as Nevin pointed out previously CC treasury is not 20B →
It’s been stated in this thread that there’s an existing unlocked RSR treasury of 20b tokens. That’s not true. That’s the number of tokens that have unlocked in the treasury category since October 2020, five years ago. A good portion of those tokens have been used along the way to get us to where we are today. [RFC] RSR Health: Request For Comments - #63 by nevin.freeman
1 Like
A few helpful links for looking at RSR treasury assets.Not a complete list but good place to start. Will defer to Reserve team to suggest corrections.
| Item | Created | Funded | Current RSR Balance | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Old RSR | 5/19/2019 | n/a | n/a | Address: 0x8762db10...3552616E8 | Etherscan |
| Old (pre fork) RSR Slow Wallet | 5/22/2019 | 55.7B RSR (old), May 2019 | 49.4B RSR (old) | Address: 0x4903dc97...c3cdad1b8 | Etherscan |
| New RSR | 1/6/2022 | n/a | n/a | Reserve Rights: RSR Token | Address: 0x320623b8...4E78B5d70 | Etherscan |
| New (post fork) RSR Slow Wallet | 1/13/2022 | 49.4B RSR, Jun 2024 | 20B RSR | Address: 0x6bab6eb8...5daad81c1 | Etherscan |
| ABC / CC Operating 2 | 6/14/2022 | Various | 0.4M RSR (+various) | Address: 0xc6625129...ba62f9db8 | Etherscan |
| ABC / CC Operating 4 | 10/1/2022 | Various | 52M RSR + 390M stRSR | Address: 0xaa41379d...df7cd76a8 | Etherscan |
| ABC / CC Operating 3 | 10/3/2022 | Various | 384M RSR (+various) | Address: 0x75d382c7...ed4dbd739 | Etherscan |
| ABC / CC Operating 1 | 7/14/2023 | Various | 2.7B RSR (+stables/Rtokens) | Address: 0x7cc1bfab...cf7e49644 | Etherscan |
| Slower Wallet / Bitcoin emissions | 1/26/2024 | 29.4B RSR, Jun 2024 | 17.4B RSR | Address: 0x0774dF07...e757f7eF8 | Etherscan |
2 Likes
So it is already above 20B. Guys let’s not beat around the bush. @nevin.freeman @agustin what is the correct number?
Agustin, you’re kinda agreeing to what everyone is tabling here with revenue and price?
Once you confirm what the treasury amount is, let’s discuss how the treasury is planned to be used over the next 5 years. There’s no roadmap or white paper here on this.
one clarification sorry, how is the budget not already defined in USD? I’m confused
1 Like
Hi, I think this respond is vague and still shows your stance on not listening to community with plants to continue to unlock hefty amounts with low reasoning model and dilute retail investors. If you are really this Nobel and concerned about future of community and retail investors than: 1. Quote ‘If the budget were instead defined only in USD terms, then a lower RSR price would imply unlocking more RSR to fund the same USD amount. That feels like the wrong direction’
First of you are having this discussion after 93% drop from last high and 98% drop from max high. Probability of going higher is more than going lower. Second how about restructuring the deals than where you tie up RSR incentives but also validate them in USD terms (Like this amount RSR is paid out but no more the $$$ usd value). Because if you agree to pay say only in RSR than a problem is that payout of say 1000000 RSR for a job in the future at the time of the deal when rsr worth 0.0017 is = 1700 USD but RSR does 10x and you just paid for a job that is worth on the open market 1700 USD 17 000 USD so you automatically create extra sell pressure in large numbers since its auto dups instantly. This is a big problem. I say the most fair play is the one that was proposed by @Mosq71
I quote: " 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."
Because If you just unlock and dont burn access or dont readjust amount to be unlocked at the time of the milestone completion if price is much more higher than you are pursuing certain incentives and just dont want to admit it to us ))
3 Likes
i agree with this statement
There should be absolutely NO unlocking of any new tokens into this market until the RSR value reaches at least a penny ($0.01). Otherwise, people will lose confidence in this project and perceive it as a scam, as their investment value will plummet, just like many others who have lost significant amounts due to poor decisions. GET THE RSR VALUE UP! That’s what attracts investors.
1 Like
In favor of the proposal with modifications mentioned by @azkuel (NARR per RSR being a key measurement) and @R72 (taking the price of RSR into consideration at time of unlock).
Here’s a quick heads-up:
XRP, WLFI, HASH, CRONOS, TRON, and STABLE all have 100 billion tokens and are in the top 100. They’re not memes, far from.
Also VET has 85 billion, and quite a few others have 50 billion+.
The amount of tokens isn’t the issue; it never was. Time was and is.
At the moment what we’re seeing is a decentralized circus and/or greed, and when I say greed, I mean greed in more ways than one.
If solving inflation is what people believed in everyone should’ve buckled up. When all assets go digital PMF is inevitable.
If people aren’t willing to buckle up, there are plenty of other projects out there, respectfully.
All input is welcomed though “welcomed” doesn’t mean constructive.
“Fools compete for attention. Investors accumulate asymmetry.”
You made no real point.
XRP has private shares and the token is just a medium of exchange. Rest I don’t know and quite frankly you mentioned WLFI in the same space as Reserve, says a lot about “welcomed” input. Anyways, peace.
1 Like
Quite a few peojects have 100 billion tokens and a few more have close to it.
^^^ this here is not true. That’s the point.
Everyone talks about PMF and quite frankly it’s more obvious now that we are growing but we are so, so young.
Wanting to see PMF is good but it’s ‘great’ when seeking it in a mature market. This market is far from that.
The entire crypto market is roughly 17 years old.
Consider how long it takes for a market to mature, then slam the breaks a bit.
The stock market had centuries to mature. Bonds had centuries. Real estate had millennia.
Even the internet took 25–30 years before it became obvious to everyone. And like the internet, crypto is more of an infrastructure play that will bring the world to you.
It’s great to brainstorm and be passionate but there’s nothing to get upset about, nothing to control, nothing but your emotions, control yourselves.
Today, crypto is still a tiny fraction of global capital markets yet institutions are pouring billions into ETFs, tokenization infrastructure, stablecoins, custody, settlement networks, and digital asset rails. Tokenized assets are the future.
The question isn’t whether every crypto project has product-market fit today. The question is whether you’re building for the market that exists now, or the market that exists when hundreds of trillions of dollars of stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, and business assets can move on digital rails.
Most founders underestimate how early they are because they compare crypto to mature markets. Imagine demanding Amazon-level metrics from internet startups in 1995, you’d look crazy. Imagine demanding product-market fit from railroad companies before the railroads connected the country, insane.
The greatest opportunities rarely look obvious during the infrastructure phase.
Patience is difficult when you’re measuring a 17-year-old market against systems that had hundreds or thousands of years to develop.
The future may not be “crypto versus traditional markets” future may be that traditional markets become digital markets.
When that happens? 100 billion tokens, PMF, trust, it will all make sense.
Relax a bit. Touch grass and imagine what it’ll be like vacationing in Greenland. Peace!
I don’t understand what you are trying to say. This is not constructive and just vague rhetoric. “Touch grass, crypto is in adoption state”. Bro what is this ? )) We are not 10 year old I have been in crypto since 2017 this is pointless we are discussing actual problems this project has !!! It went from inflation hedge, to stable coin factory to DTFs while carrying no PMF within 6 years window. Not 1-2 years, most startups will die by this time if they don’t have PMF but Reserve is able to stay afloat because of retail investors dilution and they don’t want to change much with same proposals for the unlocks. Again, a picture worth a thousand words. LOOK at market cap chart this price chart. One is RSR 11c+ other RSR 2.7c yet MC is almost the same. Do you see the problem now ???
Don’t show me charts in a world where the entire industry is slumping. Get past charts.
We’re still talking past each other.
You’re evaluating Reserve as if it exists in a mature market that should already have obvious product-market fit. I’m evaluating it within a crypto market that is still extremely early relative to the size of the opportunity it’s trying to address.
You describe inflation hedging, stablecoins, and DTFs as separate pivots. I don’t see them that way. I see them as layers of the same thesis: creating programmable, collateral-backed financial products on digital rails.
The end state was never “just ‘a’ stablecoin.”
It was much broader and far more ambitious. Almost to ambitious for most people I see.
Using price too is a depserate game. Using price alone as evidence is incomplete, especially when entire crypto industry has experienced drawdowns, dilution, regulatory uncertainty, changing narratives, and capital flight over the last several years.
Mind you, I agree investors should demand results what I don’t agree with is the idea that a lower token price automatically proves a failed thesis, especially in an industry where most assets remain well below previous highs.
This is going to look disappointing, and tbh you should’ve prepared for this, particularly if this is how your mind works.
The internet looked disappointing after the dot-com crash. Infrastructure almost always looks messy before it looks obvious.
The market Reserve was built for hasn’t fully arrived, some aren’t built for this.
Before I finish up…
The underlying thesis was never just: “Let’s build an inflation-hedged stablecoin.”
The thesis was closer to: “Let’s build programmable, stable money, backed by legitimized collateral.”
From there, the progression is logical:
-
Create stable units.
-
Determine what collateral best backs those units after time adjusts the when.
-
Create different risk profiles etc.
-
Turn those baskets into investable products.
-
Tokenize everything.
From this perspective RTokens and DTFs are not departures from the vision, they’re extensions of the same architecture.
So what you’re calling pivots is actually the broader roadmap unfolding around the roadmap of the industry as a whole.
This is aligning well with a certain someone’s vision from 25+ years ago. It seems much closer to a reality now more than ever.
That’s exciting.
The future was never crypto replacing traditional finance. The future will be traditional finance becoming crypto without most people realizing it happened. And when that transition occurs, today’s arguments about whether a token is acting like a mature asset inside a 17-year-old industry will probably seem far less important than whether the infrastructure was built correctly in the first place.
And no, I don’t get involved much in the theatrical side if things. What this project is worth hasn’t been determined with any sort of permanance, only temporary flucuations in volatility which I expected.
We haven’t seen a bit of the potential of what this world can look like with programmable money, when every asset and every bit of attention is accounted for. When currency is actually pegged to what’s current, and the motion that’ll come with it.
Most can’t fathom, I can. I stay focused on that.
We are exactly where we should be. And I trust where we will end up because this has always been a mission, not an investment, to me anyway.
Bro. We are discussing how to stop dilutions of the retail investors and how to do unlocks more properly in order to do so. That is why we argue that fixed unlocks can be an issue and introduce the possibility of token burns or readjustments of the amounts of unlocks depending on the token price. This is specifics. You are just talking in broad kinda obvious terms that have nothing to do with solving current problem!
1 Like