1) Some thoughts on tokens. You can't force value into a token. Period. Grafting artificial incentives onto a token (velocity sinks or mint/burn schemes) inherently adds friction (more gas per trade) to the detriment of users.
2) Sometimes velocity sinks and other schemes are a natural byproduct of good technical/economic design...
3) "Unfortunately, they have increasingly become an explicit goal rather than a natural byproduct, akin to social apps optimizing for 'virality' by using all kinds of dark patterns (e.g. spamming email/phone contacts)" - @matthuang
4) Blockchains + cryptoeconomic protocols must be designed to maximize utility for users. Not speculators.
5) in the context of 0x protocol and its users:
- relayers want to build profitable businesses w/o platform risk
- market makers want to make markets
- traders want to trade
- no one wants to deal with painful migrations due to ever evolving tech stack + community standards
- relayers want to build profitable businesses w/o platform risk
- market makers want to make markets
- traders want to trade
- no one wants to deal with painful migrations due to ever evolving tech stack + community standards
6) 0x protocol's trading functionality readily satisfies users' trading needs. The ZRX token and future governance system are intended to address users' need for this infra to remain viable long term through non-disruptive upgrades, avoiding fragmentation of the ecosystem.
7) @KyleSamani and a couple other investors have made the valid observation that governance isn't very useful until there is something *worth* governing. The observation is generally followed by a discussion around how to force value into the token...
8) I'd much rather put my effort into building something worth governing. This is what the 0x core team is going to continue focusing on and I'm glad that our community seems to be focused on this too.
