For a more focused and interactive discussion, I’d suggest you join the pNetwork Community Association (https://pnetwork-association.org/): we have discussions and online/face-to-face meetings open to all members
It’s a place where members can contribute directly; for example, this proposal is the result of reviews and improvements made by several members of the Association.
@yogalabsintern interesting point of view, thank you! you seem to be very optimistic on the fact that the bull market is coming soon Anyway I agree with you and @bertani 's comment, that was something I didn’t take into account. I’m more prone to give my vote to C) now…
Thank you! I missed the 3-year limit (or periods). I thought it might take longer, until the 20m target is reached.
I was thinking that a fixed APY might not incentivise holders to stay in the DAO at least the first year (a little nonsense because if they are in the DAO are interested to stay). For first year the real APY after inflation is 7.07% for scenario A and 9.84% for B. Following years are 10,07%, 13,07% for A and 11,07%, 9,74% for B. Introducing a decreasing APY by reducing the % of PNT allocated each year/period to avoid runaways?
Yeah i know that are projections and APY can change. Option C is more complicated to get the real APY.
For me, option A and C are similar because if we define the length of period A as equal to that of C, on paper, are pretty much the same. C is more dynamic, gives more freedom at cost of better management and can be adapted more easily to market changes or other demands.