Tokenomics is not finalized. Several models are under active evaluation. The shape below reflects current thinking, not a committed design. Specific numbers (supply, fee splits, bond sizes, slash percentages) are subject to change before launch. Treat this page as directional only.
Where this stands
We are evaluating multiple token-flow models in parallel. Until one is chosen and ratified, this page does not publish:
- Final TOKEN supply or emission schedule
- Fee split between nodes, treasury, and any buyback/burn/redistribution sink
- Challenge bond sizing
- Exact slashing percentages
- Buyback mechanism (if any)
Those will be published here once the design is locked and mirrored in an ADR.
What is likely stable
These directions are unlikely to change, even as the numbers move:
- Dual-currency. Payments settle in governance-allowlisted ERC-20s (USDC as the primary reference). A separate TOKEN handles staking, governance, and fee discounts. TOKEN is not a payment rail.
- Stake-to-participate. All nodes will be required to stake TOKEN to join the mesh, with slashable offenses enforced on-chain.
- Some form of fee recycling. A portion of protocol fees will flow back into a TOKEN sink (buyback-and-burn, treasury accrual, or a hybrid). The existence of this mechanism is stable; the form and percentage are not.
- Governance-bounded parameters. Every adjustable parameter will have hardcoded safety bounds that governance cannot override.
What might change
- Supply model. Fixed-supply vs. capped-emission vs. other schedules are all still on the table.
- Sink design. Buyback-and-burn, buyback-and-treasury, direct burn, staker redistribution — trade-offs between each are being modeled.
- Slashing split. Where slashed stake goes (challenger / burn / treasury / stakers) depends on which sink design wins.
- Fee-discount structure. Whether TOKEN-denominated discounts are flat, tiered, or phased out entirely.
- Challenge bond economics. Bond size is being calibrated against expected griefing cost and honest-challenge accessibility.
Why the delay
The financial models in the finance/ workstream are producing different recommendations depending on assumed network scale, channel volume, and node-count mix. Publishing specifics before those scenarios converge would mean retracting numbers later — worse than waiting.
What to rely on in the meantime
Other protocol pages (slashing, governance, staking) currently include illustrative numbers for completeness. Those are placeholders reflecting the leading candidate model and will be updated in lockstep with this page when the design is finalized.
If you are building against deCDN and need a specific parameter to be stable for planning, reach out — we can tell you whether it is likely to move.