Validators, let your voice be heard. Last week, @hotdao_ & @linearprotocol proposed cutting $NEAR inflation from 5% → 2.5%. Sustainability, long-term economics & how we reward participation in the network would be impacted. 2/3 must say YES for it to pass. FORK THAT to unchecked inflation. It’s time to vote. 🗳️ Resources to more info 👇 - How to vote - FAQs - Share feedback on validator incentives

NEAR has close to an ideal economic design! The latest proposal to decrease inflation to 2.5% is exactly what NEAR needs So, please vote in favour, there is no point in overpaying Ultimately, the decision is up to the stakeholders, as it should be; that is decentralization! 🧵 That is true decentralization, not developers deciding from their ivory towers on economic policy on everyone else's behalf! NEAR's economic design is excellent due to its low tail inflation + fee burn model, just like ETH, SOL & APT. This proposal will bring inflation closer in line with those chains Tail Inflation vs Capped Inflation I can already hear the nay-sayers bringing up the supply cap model, like in BTC, ADA & SUI. However, this model is, in my view, irresponsible & dangerous. Betting the security of the chain on the assumption that there will always be high fees is reckless, especially when significant fees have failed to materialize on some of those chains so far Even if it allows for an easier-to-understand & attractive economic narrative, however, that does not resolve its flaws & inherent inferiority. As tail inflation + fee burn is a superior model under all scenarios: Scenario 1: Under low economic activity, the chain remains secure due to tail inflation Without inflation, the chain would be insecure! Scenario 2: Under high economic activity, the supply can become "deflationary" Making it more scarce than the fixed supply cap chain! More or Less Inflation? Regardless of the above model, whatever inflation figure we accept does have an impact on validator counts (decentralization). However, since in NEAR's case there is a limited number of validators anyway (265), I do not see this number being impacted at all. It most likely would reduce the number of delegators behind those validators, so that is the best possible counterargument to this proposal The truth is that NEAR, like most other chains, is massively overpaying for security, which hurts token holders in the long run & does little to make the chain actually more secure under real-world conditions Personally, I would take it even further, aiming for a sub 2% inflation rate; however, considering what recently happened with SOL & SIMD-0228 failing to pass. It makes sense to target a more conservative change, especially since we will be able to decrease inflation again more easily after the "house of stake" governance upgrade Conclusion Economic design is of the utmost importance, as it is always a careful balancing act between preserving value, decentralization & security Cryptocurrencies are many things: a platform for applications, money & a store of value. Combining these attributes is key in formulating the ideal blockchain design NEAR has done a great job of making the correct trade-offs; this latest proposal is only further evidence of that fact Making NEAR not only one of the most scalable blockchains in the world, but also by adopting an economic design that reflects a thoughtful consideration of this difficult balancing act. NEAR is positioned to remain relevant for a very long time to come! 🔥

🔥 We’ve submitted a proposal to reduce NEAR’s inflation rate from 5% to 2.5%. This change is aimed at making NEAR more sustainable in the long term, supporting token value, and better aligning incentives across the ecosystem. 🚀 🔗 Proposal link: 🗳 Validators can vote here:

The race to own AI is on and Big Tech is winning. They want your data. Your value. Your control. FORK THAT. NEAR was built to flip the script: 🔓 Open-source agents 🤖 AI you control ⚡️ Infra that just works No middlemen. No friction. Just AI for everyone. Hold it NEAR. This is what it means to build the User-Owned Future:

People ask me why @NEARProtocol matters and why they should care With AI dominating everyday interactions, it makes you question what the future looks like if the tech continues to be centralized. I think NEAR is extremely well positioned to solve this. Let’s see why. 🧵1/7