4 min to read
Igniting Change: New 'Burn Baby Burn' Proposal for Handshake's Future
A Community-Driven Initiative to Reshape Handshake's Tokenomics and Utility
A New Proposal Emerges: “Burn Baby Burn”
Summary of “Burn Baby Burn” Proposal
The “Burn Baby Burn” proposal [1] introduced by Nole is a new initiative for the Handshake protocol that has gained significant traction within the community during this past X Space community call [2]. It was recently posted on GitHub and has received over 90% support so far. The proposal consists of several key components:
- Burning (or making unclaimable) a portion of the Handshake ($HNS) token supply
- Making the Alexa top 1000 domains claimable
- Releasing Alexa domains ranked 1001-10000 for auction
- Adjusting the renewal limit to create more dynamic pricing
- Highlighting and making more visible other DNS record types (like A records, MX records) within the Handshake ecosystem, i.e., implement onchain records
Pros of the Proposal
1) Marketing Impact: The burn aspect could create buzz and potentially increase the value of remaining tokens
2) Increased Utility: Making top domains claimable again and auctioning others could drive adoption and usage
3) Dynamic Pricing: Adjusting renewal costs could create a more sustainable economic model
4) Community Support: The proposal has received overwhelming support in initial voting
5) Simplified Approach: Compared to previous reallocation proposals, this one seems more straightforward
Cons and Concerns
1) Potential Division: There are concerns about publicly naming supporters/opposers of the proposal to avoid community division
2) Implementation Challenges: The proposal would require miner support and technical implementation, which could be complex
3) Censorship Worries: Some participants expressed concerns about increasing censorship in the broader internet landscape with this proposal
Popularity Over Previous Reallocation Proposal (The “Handshake V2” Proposal)
The “Burn Baby Burn” proposal is gaining popularity over the previous Handshake V2 reallocation proposal [3] for several reasons:
A) Protocol Developer Stance: Both Matt Zipkin and Rithvik were mentioned as being adamantly against onchain funding or setting up a multisig for developer funding. These developers believe that for Handshake to thrive, funding must come from outside the chain (external capital). Hence, funding protocol developers using the proposed reallocation resources does not seem to be valid reason anymore
B) Simplicity: The burn proposal is seen as a simpler approach compared to the more complex reallocation proposal
C) Marketing Potential: The idea of burning tokens has a psychological appeal that could attract attention to Handshake
D) Community Consensus: The high level of support so far (+90%) in initial voting suggests broad community alignment on this proposal
Suggestion for Separate Voting
During the X Space, there was also a discussion about the idea of breaking up the proposal into different components for voting. This approach has several potential benefits:
- Granular Feedback: It allows the community to express support or opposition to specific aspects of the proposal
- Flexibility: Parts of the proposal could be implemented even if others are rejected
- Detailed Insights: It provides a clearer picture of what the community values most
- Compromise Potential: It may be easier to reach consensus on individual elements rather than an all-or-nothing approach
Specific components that could be voted on separately include:
- The token burn
- Making Alexa top 1000 domains claimable
- Auctioning Alexa 1001-10000 domains
- Adjusting renewal pricing
- Enhancing visibility of various DNS record types (onchain records)
However, there was no consensus on voting mechanisms. Should we allow vote delegation? Should a community member with under 100 $HNS and under 10 names have the same voting power as another community member with thousands of names and a huge amount of $HNS staked? Should miners have more voting rights than others? These were some good questions presented during the call.
Additional Notes About the Call
- The discussion emphasized the importance of community engagement and the challenges of decentralized decision-making
- There were mentions of potential conflicts of interest, or external influences in past decisions about Handshake’s features
- Participants stressed the need for more miner involvement (such as Bitmain and Goldshell) and support for any major changes.
- The conversation touched on the balance between privacy and transparency in the voting process
Conclusion
The Handshake community is actively engaged in shaping the future of the protocol. While conversations are still ongoing, there seems to be more aligment from the community, with the “Burn Baby Burn” proposal emerging as a popular potential path forward. To learn more about this proposal, please check the discussion on Github [1] or read the summary from SkyInclude [4]
Next Steps:
- Continue the conversation and potentially breaking up the proposal for separate votes on different aspects
- Talk with miners (Bitmain and Goldshell) about implementing any agreed-upon changes. Will they get onboard with any proposal?
References
[1] Burn Baby Burn Proposal
[2] X Space Community Call
[3] Handshake V2 Proposal
[4] SkyInclude’s Burn Baby Burn Summary
Comments