Proposal: Revision of POL Tokenomics – Elimination of 2% Inflation and Introduction of Treasury Buyback/Burn Policy

Polygon Improvement Proposals Proposal Ideas
21

I appreciate the thoughtful debate here. Both on token supply and on how Polygon can better align economics with real usage.

My take (support, with guardrails):

  • I’m in favor of moving from 2% emissions to 0% via a gated taper (−0.5pp per quarter) — only if validator participation, network performance, and decentralization stay within clear targets. No cliffs.
  • I’d replace discretionary buybacks with programmatic, on-chain fee burns wherever feasible (PoS / AggLayer chains), plus transparent quarterly reports and a live dashboard for supply, burns, treasury flows, and validator economics.
  • During the taper, fund a temporary Validator Stability Pool so APY doesn’t collapse while fee/MEV revenues scale. Security and liveness come first.

On the “ecosystem alignment” idea (e.g., Polymarket):
I like the instinct. If Polygon’s breakout applications win, the network wins and vice versa. Instead of ad-hoc buybacks, a structured, open Ecosystem Alignment Program could create durable incentives without favoritism. For example:

  • Validator roles / staking commitments for top-usage apps that meet objective thresholds (users, fees, open-source contributions, uptime), with transparent criteria.
  • Programmatic revenue alignment (e.g., a share of sequencer/MEV or fee rebates paid in POL under public formulas), so incentives scale with actual usage rather than treasury discretion.
  • Time-boxed, reviewable agreements, not permanent privileges and always with anti-capture safeguards and sunset clauses.

This keeps the focus on usage → value capture → POL economics while avoiding the optics of price support or closed-door deals. It also answers the valid concern that we’re still in a growth phase: you can taper emissions responsibly and let successful apps “plug into” the economic layer in a way that’s measurable and revocable.

Why this path feels healthier than pure buybacks right now:

  • Programmatic burns and alignment mechanisms are rule-based and scale with real activity. Easier to audit and harder to game than discretionary treasury ops.
  • A gated taper protects validator economics while we prove out AggLayer revenue. If the gates aren’t met, the taper pauses. Simple.
  • Public reporting and a real-time dashboard raise trust and reduce narrative drift.

TL;DR
Move to 0% with a gated taper, keep security whole with a temporary validator fund, shift from buybacks to programmatic burns, and launch an Ecosystem Alignment Program that lets breakout apps (e.g., Polymarket) opt into validator/staking or revenue alignment under open, transparent rules. That combination is credibly scarce, security-first, usage-aligned, and governance-friendly.

Sources (official):

4 Likes
22

I’m definitely in support of eliminating inflation. What good does it do?

4 Likes
23

Nice! Great thinking and solid arguments.

5 Likes
24

Something needs to be done or users are going to migrate

3 Likes
25

I suggest we need to eliminate inflation, buyback and burn and even make POL as the native currency for Polymarket! We need to do better!!
Sandeep whats wrong here!!!???

4 Likes
26

Important to connote that I have no executive decision-making capabilities and my opinions are merely that of a community member. I think reduction and redirection of treasury emissions is feasible but it’s not completely clear to me if that should be the case. I do think there is a strong case for incentivization of breakout apps like Polymarket but not in a mechanism where they’re immediately dumped (such as a team grant, user airdrop, etc.). A good start is simply to identify if the current 1% emission has been useful to Polygon as a brand (I think it’s clear that it has not been impactful to the price) and then work backwards from there to calculate the “right” amount of emissions for the ecosystem.

3 Likes
27

:purple_circle: EOSI Finance’s Contribution to the POL Tokenomics Proposal

By: Ken — Lead Developer, EOSI Finance

:chart_decreasing: The Impact on Builders

I’d like to share my thoughts as the Lead Developer of EOSI Finance from our experience so far.
The sharp fall in POL’s value has severely affected us — over 70% of the funds we raised in POL since late last year have lost value.
This crash has delayed our roadmap and forced us to rethink several of our expansion plans. And I know how this pains.

I understand the need to protect validator stability, so my suggestions aim to balance both sides — sustainability for validators and relief for builders like us who believe in Polygon’s long-term vision.

:ten: Key Suggestions

:one: Gradual Reduction of Inflation

Instead of cutting inflation immediately, it should be reduced gradually (e.g., 0.5% per quarter like someone suggested) while monitoring key network health metrics such as:

  • Validator participation

  • Network decentralization

  • Overall liveness

If these metrics drop below safe limits, the reduction should pause automatically to protect network stability.

:two: Fee Burning Across All Chains

Expand the EIP-1559-style fee burn beyond Polygon PoS to AggLayer and other rollups.
This directly links token supply reduction to network activity and avoids arbitrary buyback decisions.

At the same time, the Polygon team should welcome proposals from builders to legally and safely burn more POL, helping stabilize its value.

A counter-cyclical burn policy could also be introduced:

  • In boom periods → burn or lock more POL to prevent overheating.

  • In slow periods → use treasury reserves to buy back POL or give short-term staking rewards.

This self-balancing system would help the ecosystem remain steady through market ups and downs.

:three: Transparent On-Chain Buybacks

Require that 20% (or more) of all treasury inflows — such as fees, MEV revenues, and partnerships — go to on-chain buybacks and burns.
These should be executed by transparent smart contracts with public reporting.
Regular buybacks restore trust and demonstrate Polygon’s commitment to token value.

:four: Temporary Validator Stability Fund

Create a short-term treasury-funded stability pool to support validator rewards while inflation is being reduced.
As network fees grow, phase out this pool gradually to maintain independence.

:five: Ecosystem Alignment & Cross-Chain Incentives

Launch an open ecosystem alignment program offering major dApps (like Polymarket and others) validator roles or revenue-sharing when they meet certain metrics (e.g., uptime, user activity, fees).

This aligns app success with POL demand and encourages more developers to build on Polygon.
Sharing sequencer revenues with dApps that drive high user traffic can also boost ecosystem growth.

:orange_circle: As a builder, I have to admit — our team at EOSI Finance has sometimes considered moving to another chain due to minimal ecosystem support. Polygon has incredible tech, but many builders feel unheard. Rebuilding that connection is vital.

:six: Quarterly Governance & Treasury Reports

Polygon should publish quarterly tokenomics reports that include:

  • Total and circulating supply

  • Burned tokens

  • Treasury holdings

  • Upcoming emissions

A real-time dashboard would bring transparency and reduce unnecessary speculation.

:seven: Smarter Grants & ROI-Based Funding

Instead of fixed inflation funding the treasury, focus on ROI-driven grants — projects that directly grow activity and users.
Invest more in DeFi 2.0, DeFAI protocols, and meme-driven communities, as these are proven to attract users and volume this 2025.

Most casual crypto investors out there don’t care about tech updates like AggLayer, Katana, etc — they care about projects they can relate to.
Supporting these projects will naturally grow the network’s usage and visibility.

:eight: Stronger Branding & Marketing

Many community members already said this — and I agree completely.
POL’s marketing and visibility are too weak for a project of this scale.

Polygon’s biggest success came from its L2 narrative, but since then, marketing has stagnated.
Competitors like Solana and HyperLiquid are still building user excitement through memes, cultural relevance, and consistent narratives.

Polygon should:

  • Mix DeFi + Darkpool + Layer-2 narratives into one strong story.

  • Launch campaigns showing real use cases and builder support.

  • Reintroduce “Polygon (POL)” with clear messaging that appeals to both developers and users.

:nine: Time-Weighted Staking

Offer higher rewards for longer lock-ups and mild penalties for early withdrawals.
This encourages long-term holding and stability without increasing inflation.

:ten: Developer Fee-Share Incentives

Reward developers who build high-traffic dApps.
A small share of POL transaction fees from those contracts should go to their creators.
This approach:

  • Encourages innovation

  • Provides sustainable developer income

  • Ties builder success directly to network growth

In short, the more value a dApp brings to Polygon, the more POL it earns.
This turns POL’s tokenomics into an “application mining” model that rewards productivity, not speculation.

:compass: Final Words

Polygon has the infrastructure and vision to remain a core part of Web3 — but it needs a human-centered, builder-aligned approach to tokenomics.
As a developer representing EOSI Finance, I’m rooting for Polygon to take this chance to make POL stronger, fairer, and more sustainable for everyone.

9 Likes
28

Making $POL the native token of Polymarket is a great idea.

Is there any downside? Seems like both Polymarket & Polygon benefit as $POL fees are so little.

3 Likes
29

I also want to add that when Katana rolled out and I tried it out, I was very disappointed that POL was not the native gas token. As a user and POL holder, I sat there thinking to myself, “wtf am I supposed to use this token for then?”. I have not touched Katana since. That alone really turned me off.

5 Likes
30

Appreciate the thoughtful write-up, @VentureFounder.

Below is my take, a package that (i) answers each point, (ii) sets objective guardrails tied to on-chain data, and (iii) is immediately shippable in phases.

1) Inflation: taper with automatic “safety brakes”

  • Policy: If/while POL issuance is active (commonly referenced at ~2%/yr), taper −0.5% per quarter until 0–1% band unless safety brakes trip. Brakes = pause the next cut if any of the below are true in the prior 30D:

    • Active validators producing blocks < 80 (last 7D recently hovered ~64–69).

    • Nakamoto coefficient ≤ 4 (external estimate) or concentration worsens QoQ. Set a 12-month target of NC ≥ 10.

    • Median net staking APR < 3% (benchmarked vs exchange/retail staking quotes of ~2.6–7%).

  • Why this works: It protects validator economics and decentralization while committing to predictable disinflation.

2) Fee burn: extend EIP-1559 style burns across AggLayer/CDK

  • Policy: Mandate base-fee burn on all CDK/AggLayer chains (opt-out only with governance). Today PoS burn historically annualized near ~0.27% of supply at comparable activity—use that as a baseline KPI and publish the burn % per chain.

  • Implementability: CDK already supports custom native gas tokens and fee mechanics; require templates to ship with burn enabled by default.

3) On-chain buyback & transparency

  • Policy: Route 20% of net protocol income (sequencer surplus, shared bridge fees, MEV rebates after costs) to an on-chain auction-based buyback contract with weekly reports:

    • Inputs: 30D fees & net income (cf. public dashboards)

    • Outputs: amounts bought/burned, slippage, counterparties, and P/S tracking.

  • Counter-cyclical toggle: When 30D Network REV falls below its 12-month median by >1σ, throttle buybacks and divert up to 50% of that stream to the stability fund (next section).

4) Temporary Validator Stability Fund (12–18 months)

  • Policy: Use up to 25% of the existing 12% rewards allocation (max ~300M POL over the period) to floor net staking APR ≥ 3% while inflation tapers. Sunset as fees rise.

5) Ecosystem alignment & app revenue-share

  • App mining 2.0: Share 10–25% of incremental sequencer surplus with dApps that (a) rank top decile in 30D unique users, (b) contribute ≥5% of L2 gas usage, and (c) maintain ≥30% 90-day retention. Pay in POL with a vest/clawback.

  • Why now: Activity and fees on Polygon have been rebounding in 2025; tying share to measurable usage compounds that trend.

6) POL utility: gas, collateral, and fee rebates (addresses Katana/Polymarket)

  • Katana today: Launched as a CDK/OP-stack chain using ETH as gas; POL stakers received KAT exposure via airdrops. Path forward: make POL the default gas option for new CDK chains and offer dual-gas on Katana (ETH & POL) once UX parity is proven.

  • Polymarket: Keep USDC settlement for UX/regulatory reasons, but add: (i) POL staking tiers that unlock fee rebates, (ii) POL LP boosts on markets, and (iii) a POL-denominated loyalty ladder. (Polymarket still runs on Polygon infra, and institutional tie-ups just increased—perfect moment to align incentives.)

  • PoS clarity: Since Sept 2024 PoS gas is POL—surface this in wallets/Portals and one-tap “Swap-for-Gas” in all official bridges.

7) Quarterly tokenomics & treasury reporting (plus a live dashboard)

Publish every quarter:

  • Supply & float: circ. supply (currently ~10.5–11B POL), unlocks, and emissions.

  • Burns: 90D and cumulative (link PoS burn explorer + on-chain dead address).

  • Revenues: 30D chain fees & net income (with methodology).

  • Validator health: active validators producing blocks (target ≥80), NC trend, commission dispersion.

8) Grants → ROI-based pipelines

  • Replace blanket emissions with milestone tranches: users, fee contribution, retention, security track record. Prioritize DeFi 2.0, DeFAI, and consumer-pull verticals where 2025 data shows growth.

9) Brand & narrative (make it measurable)

  • North star: “Polygon: the Aggregated Liquidity Layer.” Every launch should show practical UX wins (faster finality, lower fees, unified liquidity) with case studies (e.g., Polymarket, Katana). Track brand lift via MAU, tx/day, fee growth, and share vs other L2s.

10) Time-weighted staking (simple tiers)

  • 12m lock = 2.0×, 6m = 1.5×, 3m = 1.2×, flex = 1.0×.

  • Early exit penalty: 25% of accrued bonus goes to the stability fund. (Keeps long-term alignment without new inflation.)

11) Developer fee-share

  • Rule: Eligible contracts (opt-in, audited) earn 5–10% of base fees they generate, paid in POL monthly, subject to (a) security score, (b) uptime, and (c) no-wash-tx detection. This turns POL into “application mining” that rewards productive usage.

Closing

This set balances validator sustainability, clear POL utility, and builder/user incentives, all tied to publicly verifiable metrics and dashboards.

8 Likes
32

Totally in agreement with this proposal. POL is a wonderful project with proven use cases and a team that works hard, but it needs to realign with reality… inflation, in the current context of the network, does not do any good.

3 Likes
33

Thanks for putting this together, @venturecapital. This proposal brings up some important points and I am personally happy that we are having this conversation.

In the week since you originally posted, I’ve circulated your proposal within Polygon Labs for feedback and input.

This post (sorry it’s so long!) represents a summary of key thoughts and suggestions, as well as a few immediate things that we’re taking on in order to address your concerns about network tokenomics.

First, I want to share that Polygon Labs has been actively looking into a POL buyback program that would benefit the entire ecosystem; the research on POL buyback is early, but this has been on our radar in recent months.

That said, when people talk about cutting emissions, it’s important to understand how the network currently functions. I’d like to summarize some of the discussions that we had internally, specifically around why emissions exist, what role they play, and how they help keep the ecosystem healthy and growing for everyone.

POL Emissions

POL emissions earn the network more than the 2% emitted in total returns.

When MATIC was upgraded to POL (a process that will be nearly 100% complete this month when Coinbase upgrades outstanding MATIC to POL) it was a utility upgrade that came with new, sustainable tokenomics. Network consensus was reached, introducing an expanded vision of POL as a token not only for Polygon, but also Agglayer. You can read how POL will accrue value here and here.

The new tokenomics introduced a 2%/year POL emissions. These 2% emissions go directly to two sources:

  • funding staking rewards through the network’s 105 validators for doing the work of validation as well as the delegators who stake POL; and
  • funding the independent Polygon Community Treasury to support and grow the Polygon ecosystem.

There are no private entities paying for validators or ecosystem growth.

These functions are entirely funded with independent, public resources—POL—which is critical for network decentralization.

It ensures that validators and the Community Treasury are funded fairly and consistently, without private entities jockeying for control over them.

1% of POL emissions goes to staking rewards: validators and stakers have collectively staked 3.4B POL

POL emissions ensure staking secures the network:

  • Rewards stakers for delegating POL
  • Rewards validators and ensures they have a neutral, independent, and consistent source of revenue to insulate against normal market fluctuations.

This helps to protect against validator offboarding by keeping rewards consistent. If there are no POL emissions, there are no staking rewards for validators and delegators.

A few things would happen without staking rewards, with far larger and worse outcomes than an emission-based token economy:

  1. Polygon is a proof-of-stake network: without rewards, there is no incentive to stake; without stake, there is no network security
  2. Validators would offboard from the network: without rewards for doing the work, there’s no reason to continue to run a validator node.
  3. No rewards leads to unhealthy tokenomics: without rewards, validators and delegators unstake the 3.4B tokens, with a large part of that float coming to markets

So, a 1% annual POL emission, directed as a staking reward, incentivizes validators and delegators to keep the network secure, sufficiently decentralized, and trustless.

Without it, the network loses these properties and becomes less stable.

1% of POL emissions go to the Polygon Community Treasury

The other 1% of POL emissions is directed towards the Treasury. The Treasury is a transparent, independent body that funds all network public goods.

It also uses received POL to strategically invest, leading to network returns that have the potential to far outweigh a 2% network burn.

Most competing networks have treasuries with 30-40% supply of tokens. These networks can outcompete Polygon in the long run if the Community Treasury is defunded by turning off emissions today.

Without the Treasury, the network would have no way to pay for:

  • Network governance infrastructure, including the Protocol Council, an independent group of industry leading auditors, security experts, and blockchain executives that ensure the decentralization and security of the Polygon protocol.
  • Critical infrastructure for blockchain accessibility and usability, including network RPC providers, indexers, and wallets.
  • Critical partnerships that support decentralization and the Polygon community, including independent funding for L2Beat and Blockworks.

When it comes to growth, the Treasury Board is currently:

  • Allocating ~20% of all spending for seed liquidity, bootstrapping ecosystem teams in a way that will directly pay the Treasury back 100% while supporting continued value multipliers to reverberate throughout the ecosystem.
  • Exploring a proposal to stake idle and additional funds, supporting ecosystem partners’ growth while earning and reinvesting yield.
  • Strategically targeting deals that bring net larger onchain value to Polygon than the grant amount, such as the recently announced AlloyX collaboration.

Put simply, the Treasury ensures the network both survives and thrives, funding critical strategic and infrastructure projects onchain that the ecosystem needs to win.

Next Steps

All of the above initiatives are scheduled to phase down over time; but given the reasons stated above, now is not the time to make changes. In the same vein, as stated in the beginning, we’re looking into a POL buyback.

We believe in creating value by building and improving, rather than chasing short-term gains. It is understandable to focus on short-term supply and demand arguments that might seem beneficial at the moment.

Those ideas are reasonable to consider, but they do not always support long-term growth.

Our focus at Polygon Labs remains on building the strongest ecosystem we can, offering the best services on the best blockchain with the best technology stack.

POL grows in value as the Polygon ecosystem grows in real utility and adoption.

For example, last week Polygon experienced the biggest-ever payments upgrade. It’s not an exaggeration to say that the Rio upgrade brings Polygon to the forefront of payments in crypto. Polygon is now faster, more reliable, and more open to builders—everythin institutions, developers, and fintechs need in a payments platform.

The upgrade:

  • Enables 5,000 TPS
  • Ends the risk of reorgs
  • Increases blocktime and brings near-instant finality
  • Lowers the cost of running nodes and expands network participation

This is a major improvement that significantly increases scalability, reduces congestion, and lowers costs.

For POL holders, this means faster and cheaper transactions, a better experience for users interacting with the network, and stronger adoption of applications built on Polygon.

For builders and institutions, it means accelerating growth, at a moment when Polygon leads in P2P everyday payments (under $100), leads in emerging markets with 90% of stablecoin volume, and continues to see major adoption and integration by the likes of Stripe, Revolut, and many others.

Rio strengthens the utility and value proposition of POL because as the network grows and more activity happens on-chain, demand for POL naturally increases.

In parallel, the Foundation is leading a series of POL activations and educational campaigns to raise awareness about the upgrade from MATIC to POL. Several large market makers have also recently returned to support POL liquidity on exchanges globally.

We continue to deepen partnerships that drive real utility and adoption. Our collaboration with Cypher Capital and Amina Bank focuses on accelerating ecosystem growth by backing high-quality projects building on Polygon and supporting developers through funding, mentorship, and regional market access. Meanwhile, our work with AlloyX is aimed at expanding real-world asset opportunities on Polygon, bringing new on-chain yield products and institutional-grade financial infrastructure that can attract a broader base of users and investors.

These efforts create tangible, long-term value for POL holders and strengthen Polygon’s position as the leading platform for scalable, real-world finance.

Looking ahead, there are various airdrops coming via the Agglayer Breakout Program.

This is just the beginning. We have a strong pipeline of announcements ahead that will continue to expand the utility of POL and deliver value for holders.

Really happy about your thoughtful proposal, thank you for sparking this discussion! If you have any further requests or concerns, please let me know.

4 Likes
34

Long time MATIC holder, been there when it hit $2.26 and been there when it hit $.15 too, not sure what this proposal will do for POL price but its worth pursuing it. I am for this proposal!

2 Likes
35

While I fully understand the sentiment, I think reducing inflation without finding alternate mode of revenue for validators is not sustainable. It will eventually lead to a less secure network which could get exploited, that in turn will end up damaging to the token’s value more than inflation does. Without a sustainable revenue, inflation becomes a necessary evil.

In my opinion, the primary goal should be to create demand for the token rather than reducing its supply. A few months ago, I wrote a post about one way to do that here https://forum.polygon.technology/t/improving-dao-grant-sustainability-through-revenue-based-buyback/21044
May be I should propose it as a PIP to get the community feedback.

1 Like
36

Interesting proposal! Eliminating the 2% inflation could really help with long-term token value, and the treasury buyback/burn approach sounds like a solid way to manage supply. Curious to see how the community reacts and what the projected impact on liquidity would be.

37

It’s like for politics, I registered specifically to address this critical issue. Let’s be honest on that lol
I do not have a true solution to the problem. But the problem is major. And validators / investor seems to not have a strong power when it comes to their opinions to try to change a centralized decision for some reasons said in the thread.

Talking about airdrops is just tokenomics theater. Everywhere , everyone I worked with use the same magic word for not losing interest from other persons. Interest should not be in Airdrops. And it isn’t something that should be correlated to the current thread. It is smoke. Speculative vapor. Like any other products and “pipeline“ talks. It is just betting on a better future without having validator knowing the concrete incentive of that future and trying to make at ease someone.

ie: Airdrop guys ! Airdrops is our promise !!!

  • Big announcements (Agglayer! Breakout Program!)

- Exciting buzzwords (Airdrops! ZK! DeFi!)

- Vague promises (Future value! Ecosystem growth!) → Here is the fact. No one will know, No one can guarantee airdrop value will compensate for the guaranteed 2% dilution validators and investors suffer annually. Will it for sure compensate the cost it took to someone to stake 10K, 50K, 100K, 1M POL for validating ?

- Zero commitment to fixing the core problem → That is the finality. “Let see and hope ! Meantime we get free money for our development for not being outcompeteded ! Houra !!“ . Why not be validator to get money for the treasury ? Why should everyone pay for Polygon Labs’ competitive positioning ?

Meanwhile:

- 2% inflation continues

- No burn mechanism

  • Treasury keeps getting free 1% emission → “if not, no improvement and can’t go further.”

- Validators and Holders keep bleeding

——-

  1. Stop 2% inflation (cap supply)
  2. Add burn mechanism (like MATIC had)
  3. Fee revenue sharing ( for validators (and why not Treasury for some times))
  4. Token buybacks (like proposed)
  5. Hope incoming money outflow the inflation at a constant or higher rate
  6. Reduce drastically inflationnary system

Airdrops should be BONUS, not compensation for current tokenomics situation in favor of free money for treasury.

Deciding to continue or not to validate in current situation, is like for the sake of securing the protocol, am I alright to keep 2% inflation for less return each year ? More easier to just stroke in black the money it cost for some validators and forget it, then say to validators and other investors: “Validate if you want, Delegate if you want, but know that we’re diluting the tokens you bought for that purpose with the free emissions we get. “.

There is protocols that doesnt incentivize any gain on validating. and for which being rewarded for validating isnt a sentence that looks like a promise of bright future. just because it is not said at all. That makes validation being purely validation for the sake of the protocol.

Rejecting the anti-inflation proposal and pushing “but airdrops!”, “new products !“ instead tells everything is to be known.
What will happen if POL drops to $0.00XXXX (6 decimal places, what about 10 ? ) ? Will the treasury fund still function? Does validator still function ? Or it will be the time where things will change again to save the treasury ? What if everyone continue to trade it lower. Who will fight it ?

I mean I am for the proposal. and that proposal should be bring to the whole polygon community. It is not an internal affair that should be correlated to airdrops or “hope“ of great product.

so to summarize:
Option A: Wait

- See if tokenomics proposal passes

- See if burn mechanism returns

- See if first airdrops have value → after what devaluation of the main concern here ?

- See the “buyback research“ result → sometimes, somewhere in the future. Just a “delay the truth“ words. What commitment ? Why it isn’t public research with every user with an idea to help ? why it is the other way around ?

- Then decide.

Option B: Money Troll

- Validate other protocols

- Keep small POL position for airdrops

Option C: Skip POL

- Invest in successful Polygon projects directly

  • Avoid POL dilution entirely

Something still blowing my mind. Why that kind of proposal which deserves a community-wide vote, not a dismissal disguised as engagement, can’t be voted as a community ?
instead of “we heard the community !!! We are going to do some changes“. No no, community should be able to put power on their words, and power the right to change.
I support this proposal and that sucks that there is not even a “pre-vote“ governance step without “internal“ intervention if not harmless to the community to then have the final governance vote for it.
The PIP process should have clear thresholds:

  • X signatures → auto-progresses to formal PIP

  • Y% snapshot support → auto-progresses to on-chain vote

  • Z% on-chain approval → auto-implements

    Instead, we have: “We’ll think about it.” That’s not governance. That’s consultation with a veto. Do a draft, then do a PR.

Some may argue “POL is not a financial instrument” or “we never encouraged speculation.” or “It is for the Tech !” but that will be contradictory. POL is designed as a staking token with explicit yield mechanisms.

I think many are not asking for price guarantees or Bright future type of Incentive Vapor as rewards. But asking for alignment between those who fund the protocol (validators/delegators) and those who benefit from it (treasury/labs).

  • Make emissions sustainable or eliminate them.
  • Make airdrops a bonus or admit they’re compensation.
  • Make governance real or admit it’s consultative.
  • Remove the structural conflict where investors dilution funds treasury and development without any bottom limit.
    Cordially,
38

I think the reality is that Polygon today is so structured in the worst sense of the word, that every proposal from below does not have the slightest hope of being taken into consideration if not approved by stakeholders who literally hold the entire protocol hostage. Sad but true.