Foundations of Cryptoeconomic Systems

Kajetan Olas

28 Feb 2024
Foundations of Cryptoeconomic Systems

The significance of cryptoeconomic systems extends beyond the mere functioning of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum. These systems underpin the entire blockchain technology, enabling not just financial transactions but also the creation and execution of smart contracts, the development of decentralized applications (DApps), and the realization of complex governance models. By ensuring the integrity, security, and continuity of decentralized networks, cryptoeconomics not only challenges traditional financial systems but also paves the way for a new era of digital economy.

Understanding Cryptoeconomic Systems

What Are Cryptoeconomic Systems?

Cryptoeconomic systems blend cryptographic security with economic incentives to sustain decentralized networks. These systems enable secure, decentralized transactions and operations without central oversight. They achieve this by leveraging cryptography for security and economic principles to align participant incentives.

The Intersection of Cryptography and Economics

  • Cryptography in cryptoeconomic systems secures transactions and data. It involves digital signatures for identity verification and hash functions for ledger integrity, ensuring that transactions are both authentic and immutable. This security mechanism is vital for preventing fraud and maintaining trust among participants in a decentralized environment.
  • Economic incentives play a crucial role in motivating participants to maintain and secure the network. Tokens or cryptocurrencies are awarded for validating transactions or contributing resources, aligning participant actions with the network's health. This incentive structure is designed to encourage honest participation, securing the network against attacks and ensuring its longevity.

Together, cryptography and economic incentives create a self-sustaining system where security and participant cooperation are intrinsic. This synergy not only eliminates the need for central intermediaries but also introduces a more resilient and transparent way of conducting transactions.

Complexity of Cryptoeconomic Systems

There are however challenges in designing and managing decentralized systems. While these systems are engineered to incentivize positive contributions, their complexity can lead to unpredictable outcomes. Such property is called emergence.

Navigating Complexity

To mitigate the risks associated with complexity and emergence, developers and participants in blockchain systems must employ rigorous testing, continuous monitoring, and adaptive governance mechanisms. This includes:

The Design Principles of Cryptoeconomic Systems

Cryptoeconomic systems are distinguished by their reliance on principles that combine cryptographic security with economic incentives, directing the behavior of decentralized networks. This section examines the role of reversed game theory and decentralization, with a focus on how emergence and feedback mechanisms influence the design and functionality of these systems.

Reversed Game Theory in Cryptoeconomic Systems

Reversed game theory is pivotal in constructing cryptoeconomic systems, emphasizing the creation of mechanisms that guide participant behavior towards desired network outcomes. This approach contrasts with traditional game theory by prioritizing the design of rules and incentives to induce cooperative and honest behaviors, rather than merely predicting outcomes based on existing strategies.

Consensus algorithms like Proof of Work (PoW) and Proof of Stake (PoS) are practical applications of reversed game theory. They align individual incentives with the collective goal of network security. There are many more consensus protocols, with different trade-offs, so when designing a blockchain its good to examine pros and cons of each one.

Emergence and Feedback Loops

The complex interactions within cryptoeconomic systems can lead to emergent behavior, where collective outcomes arise that are not directly predictable from individual actions.
Well-designed Feedback loops are critical in this context, as they allow the system to adjust to emergent behaviors, enhancing resilience.
For instance, automatic difficulty adjustments in mining algorithms respond to changes in network participation. This maintains consistent block creation times despite fluctuating levels of computational power

Testing

While designing a cryptoeconomic system, creators make a set of assumptions on how rational participants will act in different situations. Based on these assumptions, they identify possible risks, and implement safeguard mechanisms. Even though this fosters network’s resilience, it’s often not enough. Reason is that developers can foresee only a certain number of interactions, and emergent behaviors may still disrupt the system. Luckily there are more reliable testing options. Studies have shown that probabilistic methods can be used with good success to detect unexpected risks. 

Decentralization: Trade-offs and Benefits

Decentralization distributes network control across multiple participants, reducing reliance on central authorities and increasing system robustness. This principle significantly influences the design and operation of blockchain systems. It introduces many structural benefits and challenges, coming from the lack of central power.

Benefits:

Trade-offs:

Design of cryptoeconomic systems is deeply influenced by game theory and the principles of decentralization, with special consideration given to the roles of emergence. These elements collectively ensure that systems are secure, transparent, and adaptable, capable of responding to unexpected behaviors and evolving network requirements. Addressing the inherent trade-offs in these designs is crucial for the continued development and success.

Conclusion

The exploration of cryptoeconomic systems reveals a fascinating intersection between cryptography, and economy, creating a framework for decentralized networks. Consensus protocols are result of interedisciplinary research, and they allow cryptoeconomic systems to achieve their core functionality. This functionality is to store and process transactions in secure, and censorship-resistant fashion. They also enable the development of custom decentralized applications. Cryptoeconomic systems come with both benefits and challenges, so it's best to tailor technology that's used to individual's needs.

If you're looking to design or test a blockchain-based system, please reach out to contact@nextrope.com. Our team is ready to help you create a system that aligns with your project's long-term growth and market resilience.

FAQ

In simple words - what are cryptoeconomic systems?

  • They are protocols combining cryptography and economic incentives to secure decentralized networks.

Are there challenges associated with the complexity of these systems?

  • Yes, complexity necessitates testing and adaptive governance for stability.

What future developments can be expected in the field?

  • Currently, research focuses on improving scalability, without the loss of decentralization.

Most viewed


Never miss a story

Stay updated about Nextrope news as it happens.

You are subscribed

Aethir Tokenomics – Case Study

Kajetan Olas

22 Nov 2024
Aethir Tokenomics – Case Study

Authors of the contents are not affiliated to the reviewed project in any way and none of the information presented should be taken as financial advice.

In this article we analyze tokenomics of Aethir - a project providing on-demand cloud compute resources for the AI, Gaming, and virtualized compute sectors.
Aethir aims to aggregate enterprise-grade GPUs from multiple providers into a DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network). Its competitive edge comes from utlizing the GPUs for very specific use-cases, such as low-latency rendering for online games.
Due to decentralized nature of its infrastructure Aethir can meet the demands of online-gaming in any region. This is especially important for some gamer-abundant regions in Asia with underdeveloped cloud infrastructure that causes high latency ("lags").
We will analyze Aethir's tokenomics, give our opinion on what was done well, and provide specific recommendations on how to improve it.

Evaluation Summary

Aethir Tokenomics Structure

The total supply of ATH tokens is capped at 42 billion ATH. This fixed cap provides a predictable supply environment, and the complete emissions schedule is listed here. As of November 2024 there are approximately 5.2 Billion ATH in circulation. In a year from now (November 2025), the circulating supply will almost triple, and will amount to approximately 15 Billion ATH. By November 2028, today's circulating supply will be diluted by around 86%.

From an investor standpoint the rational decision would be to stake their tokens and hope for rewards that will balance the inflation. Currently the estimated APR for 3-year staking is 195% and for 4-year staking APR is 261%. The rewards are paid out weekly. Furthermore, stakers can expect to get additional rewards from partnered AI projects.

Staking Incentives

Rewards are calculated based on the staking duration and staked amount. These factors are equally important and they linearly influence weekly rewards. This means that someone who stakes 100 ATH for 2 weeks will have the same weekly rewards as someone who stakes 200 ATH for 1 week. This mechanism greatly emphasizes long-term holding. That's because holding a token makes sense only if you go for long-term staking. E.g. a whale staking $200k with 1 week lockup. will have the same weekly rewards as person staking $1k with 4 year lockup. Furthermore the ATH staking rewards are fixed and divided among stakers. Therefore Increase of user base is likely to come with decrease in rewards.
We believe the main weak-point of Aethirs staking is the lack of equivalency between rewards paid out to the users and value generated for the protocol as a result of staking.

Token Distribution

The token distribution of $ATH is well designed and comes with long vesting time-frames. 18-month cliff and 36-moths subsequent linear vesting is applied to team's allocation. This is higher than industry standard and is a sign of long-term commitment.

  • Checkers and Compute Providers: 50%
  • Ecosystem: 15%
  • Team: 12.5%
  • Investors: 11.5%
  • Airdrop: 6%
  • Advisors: 5%

Aethir's airdrop is divided into 3 phases to ensure that only loyal users get rewarded. This mechanism is very-well thought and we rate it highly. It fosters high community engagement within the first months of the project and sets the ground for potentially giving more-control to the DAO.

Governance and Community-Led Development

Aethir’s governance model promotes community-led decision-making in a very practical way. Instead of rushing with creation of a DAO for PR and marketing purposes Aethir is trying to make it the right way. They support projects building on their infrastructure and regularly share updates with their community in the most professional manner.

We believe Aethir would benefit from implementing reputation boosted voting. An example of such system is described here. The core assumption is to abandon the simplistic: 1 token = 1 vote and go towards: Votes = tokens * reputation_based_multiplication_factor.

In the attached example, reputation_based_multiplication_factor rises exponentially with the number of standard deviations above norm, with regard to user's rating. For compute compute providers at Aethir, user's rating could be replaced by provider's uptime.

Perspectives for the future

While it's important to analyze aspects such as supply-side tokenomics, or governance, we must keep in mind that 95% of project's success depends on demand-side. In this regard the outlook for Aethir may be very bright. The project declares $36M annual reccuring revenue. Revenue like this is very rare in the web3 space. Many projects are not able to generate any revenue after succesfull ICO event, due to lack fo product-market-fit.

If you're looking to create a robust tokenomics model and go through institutional-grade testing please reach out to contact@nextrope.com. Our team is ready to help you with the token engineering process and ensure your project’s resilience in the long term.

Quadratic Voting in Web3

Kajetan Olas

04 Dec 2024
Quadratic Voting in Web3

Decentralized systems are reshaping how we interact, conduct transactions, and govern online communities. As Web3 continues to advance, the necessity for effective and fair voting mechanisms becomes apparent. Traditional voting systems, such as the one-token-one-vote model, often fall short in capturing the intensity of individual preferences, which can result in centralization. Quadratic Voting (QV) addresses this challenge by enabling individuals to express not only their choices but also the strength of their preferences.

In QV, voters are allocated a budget of credits that they can spend to cast votes on various issues. The cost of casting multiple votes on a single issue increases quadratically, meaning that each additional vote costs more than the last. This system allows for a more precise expression of preferences, as individuals can invest more heavily in issues they care deeply about while conserving credits on matters of lesser importance.

Understanding Quadratic Voting

Quadratic Voting (QV) is a voting system designed to capture not only the choices of individuals but also the strength of their preferences. In most DAO voting mechanisms, each person typically has one vote per token, which limits the ability to express how strongly they feel about a particular matter. Furthermore, QV limits the power of whales and founding team who typically have large token allocations. These problems are adressed by making the cost of each additional vote increase quadratically.

In QV, each voter is given a budget of credits or tokens that they can spend to cast votes on various issues. The key principle is that the cost to cast n votes on a single issue is proportional to the square of n. This quadratic cost function ensures that while voters can express stronger preferences, doing so requires a disproportionately higher expenditure of their voting credits. This mechanism discourages voters from concentrating all their influence on a single issue unless they feel very strongly about it. In the context of DAOs, it means that large holders will have a hard-time pushing through with a proposal if they'll try to do it on their own.

Practical Example

Consider a voter who has been allocated 25 voting credits to spend on several proposals. The voter has varying degrees of interest in three proposals: Proposal A, Proposal B, and Proposal C.

  • Proposal A: High interest.
  • Proposal B: Moderate interest.
  • Proposal C: Low interest.

The voter might allocate their credits as follows:

Proposal A:

  • Votes cast: 3
  • Cost: 9 delegated tokens

Proposal B:

  • Votes cast: 2
  • Cost: 4 delegated tokens

Proposal C:

  • Votes cast: 1
  • Cost: 1 delegated token

Total delegated tokens: 14
Remaining tokens: 11

With the remaining tokens, the voter can choose to allocate additional votes to the proposals based on their preferences or save for future proposals. If they feel particularly strong about Proposal A, they might decide to cast one more vote:

Additional vote on Proposal A:

  • New total votes: 4
  • New cost: 16 delegated tokens
  • Additional cost: 16−9 = 7 delegated tokens

Updated total delegated tokens: 14+7 = 21

Updated remaining tokens: 25−21 = 425 - 21 = 4

This additional vote on Proposal A costs 7 credits, significantly more than the previous vote, illustrating how the quadratic cost discourages excessive influence on a single issue without strong conviction.

Benefits of Implementing Quadratic Voting

Key Characteristics of the Quadratic Cost Function

  • Marginal Cost Increases Linearly: The marginal cost of each additional vote increases linearly. The cost difference between casting n and n−1 votes is 2n−1.
  • Total Cost Increases Quadratically: The total cost to cast multiple votes rises steeply, discouraging voters from concentrating too many votes on a single issue without significant reason.
  • Promotes Egalitarian Voting: Small voters are encouraged to participate, because relatively they have a much higher impact.

Advantages Over Traditional Voting Systems

Quadratic Voting offers several benefits compared to traditional one-person-one-vote systems:

  • Captures Preference Intensity: By allowing voters to express how strongly they feel about an issue, QV leads to outcomes that better reflect the collective welfare.
  • Reduces Majority Domination: The quadratic cost makes it costly for majority groups to overpower minority interests on every issue.
  • Encourages Honest Voting: Voters are incentivized to allocate votes in proportion to their true preferences, reducing manipulation.

By understanding the foundation of Quadratic Voting, stakeholders in Web3 communities can appreciate how this system supports more representative governance.

Conclusion

Quadratic voting is a novel voting system that may be used within DAOs to foster decentralization. The key idea is to make the cost of voting on a certain issue increase quadratically. The leading player that makes use of this mechanism is Optimism. If you're pondering about the design of your DAO, we highly recommend taking a look at their research on quadratic funding.

If you're looking to create a robust governance model and go through institutional-grade testing please reach out to contact@nextrope.com. Our team is ready to help you with the token engineering process and ensure that your DAO will stand out as a beacon of innovation and resilience in the long term.