Rewards and locked up xlm

[Jonny316]

Good idea, I think it should be funded with the rest of the XLM from the mandate.

[Tenuki369]

Rather than introducing additional token issuance or reserve-funded rewards, why not explore a model where real network-generated revenue creates recurring demand for XLM?

A potential framework:

Revenue-linked buybacks: Allocate a portion of eligible, recurring ecosystem revenue toward open-market XLM purchases and permanent burns.

• Preserve fixed supply: Avoid inflationary incentives and protect existing holders from dilution.
• Protect Stellar’s advantage: Maintain low transaction fees while exploring sustainable value capture from premium institutional services.
• Align incentives: Ensure growing network adoption translates into measurable XLM utility, benefiting holders without requiring participation in staking or reward programs.

This would shift the focus from distributing tokens to creating sustainable demand for them.

My recommendation: Before advancing the Rewards Pool, publish a comparative economic model evaluating inflationary rewards, reserve-funded incentives, and revenue-backed buyback-and-burn mechanisms.

Stellar has an opportunity to build tokenomics where institutional adoption strengthens XLM’s economics without compromising its monetary discipline.

[Jonny316]

I like the idea of the revenue backed buy back and burn mechanism and avoiding inflation. 50billion with it also being able to be diveded into stroops seems enough atm.

[JFWooten4]

This already happens whereby network revenue increases users who have to lock base reserves up. Your proposition seems to imply there would be a single ecosystem participant in a place to collect all network-generated revenue. That is not possible, and the only parallel implementation of it actually relies on inflation.

And as for using the Mandate, you would first need to deal with the Foundation access-control problem of who created this discussion category.

[Tenuki369]

Fair points. Base reserves already create XLM demand, and ecosystem revenue is decentralized. I’m not suggesting a single entity should capture revenue generated by independent participants.

The distinction I’m raising is between XLM demand created by network participation and sustainable value accrual tied to economic activity.

Stellar’s own paper raises this possibility asking which future network environments could contribute revenue and whether pool funds should support purposes beyond rewards.

My suggestion is to evaluate whether eligible, voluntarily contributed or protocol-controlled revenue could support transparent XLM acquisition and permanent retirement, without new issuance or mandatory ecosystem-wide revenue collection.

If we’re evaluating a program requiring 100M XLM annually at 5B committed and 2% rewards, shouldn’t we also model a noninflationary alternative that creates demand rather than recurring distributions?

I’d welcome a technical comparison of both approaches.