WFC: Agree that coretime is not a viable revenue model for Kusama and encourage the development of radical new approaches for burning KSM and alternative mechanisms for accruing value to the canarys treasury account as part of the move to becoming a free-thinking cousin of Polkadot.
Why this WFC?
Kusama was marketed as a project that aimed to challenge established thinking.
It's time to dogfood that claim, by challenging its own accepted wisdom.
Overview
Coretime is Kusama's primary product, exposing computational resources initially to parachains and now to applications building on the network through contracts on Asset Hub.
As noted in WFC 539 Kusama Asset Hub aims to become the centre of economic activity on the network, however as a system chain, it does not purchase coretime and therefore will not contribute to burning KSM throught the consumption of coretime.
In the absence of public demand from Asset Hub, demand (and thus burn) must be stimulated by private market consumers of coretime.
RFC 0149
The enactment of RFC 0149 aims to course correct current issues with the design of coretime sales that have led to the hoarding of cores.
Although it reworks the current mechanism it also acknowledges:
This RFC should solve the immediate problems we are seeing in production right now. Longer term, improvements to the market in terms of price discovery (RFC-17) should be considered, especially once demand grows.
An unsustainable economy
We posit that the coretime experiment should be seen as a useful resource, but deprioritised as a near or even medium term strategy for sustaining the current Kusama economy.
Time for alternatives
in addition to accepting the limitations of coretime, this WFC aims to also encourage alternative and perhaps more radical proposals for burning KSM and building a diversified and productive treasury reserve.
Comments (2)
Proposal Failed
Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (3)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (18)0.0 DOT
Coretime has never been designed to be a viable revenue model, nor for Kusama neither Polkadot.
No one from the builders who designed it never said such a thing.
Some random lost guys in the community who believed Coretime will make DOT/KSM pump by burning millions of DOT/KSM raised that point, and only them.
So Coretime shouldn't even be mentioned in this WFC.
What are the new approaches and mechanisms you are talking about? You don't even bring a single detailed solution...
So please, can you stop spamming OpenGov?
You're starting to be really really tiring.
If you want open discussions and brainstorm about solutions, use the Polkadot forum.
@SUPERDUPONT
Kusama and Polkadot sell two things:
In the absence of demand + pricing power for coretime, alternative
revenueburn models should be prioritised.It seems you agree here, though so we can move on.
WFC work best when they are narrowly focused, solutions can come later.
This WFC is to agree that coretime is not viable as a revenue/burn model.
There is too much time / effort / talent sucked into a coretime attention vortex when resources would be better directed elsewhere.
WFC are issues that can be directed to KSM holders directly rather than going to a third party site which is moderated.
PolkaWorld votes NAY
WFC proposals should come with concrete solutions — not just vague directions or spur-of-the-moment ideas.
We recommend that proposals like this be first shared on the Polkadot forum to gather community feedback, and only then refined into actionable, well-structured WFC submissions.
Read all feedback here.
@POLKAWORLD
WFC is an under-appreciated/used/experimented with public communication channel/medium for opening up Kusama's overton window.