NEAR Tokenomics 2.0 Governance Proposa

House of Stake Governance
, ,
1 
                   NEAR Tokenomics 2.0 Governance Proposal 🔥

NEAR’s tokenomics has remained largely unchanged since 2020. In the same period, leading blockchain networks have updated their monetary models to ensure predictability, stability, and institutional adoption. To stay competitive, NEAR must evolve as well — carefully, without shocking validators, and with clear safeguards for stakers and institutions.

:key: Key Parameters

  • Current circulating supply: ≈ 1.25B NEAR
  • Reference price: $3.00 (baseline for scenarios)
  • Target supply cap (by 2040): 1.6B NEAR
  • Inflation reduction: 5% → 3.25%, step −0.25% per month (~7 months to reach 3.25%)
  • Staked share (current): ~44–46%
  • Projected APR at 3.25% inflation & 46% staked: ≈ 6.36 - 7.06% APR

Inflation_Reduction_Timeline
Inflation_Reduction_Timeline1566×1188 26.3 KB

Mechanics​:gear:

Loyalty Program :seedling:

  • Voluntary locks: 12 / 36 / 60 months with bonuses (+0.5% / +1.0% / +1.5% APY).
  • Early exit incurs partial burn.

Liquidity Growth Initiative :droplet:

One of the biggest drivers of TVL in other ecosystems has been high-yield liquidity programs. Avalanche, for example, offers 34% APY on USDC via AAVE — backed by daily volumes >$1B.
NEAR can replicate this success by launching a Liquidity Mining Program:

  • Target: USDC / stablecoin pools in Aurora (AAVE-style or Burrow upgrade).
  • Mechanism: additional APR incentives (e.g. 15–20% boost) funded via treasury + partner grants, distributed with vesting to avoid mercenary capital.
  • UX: seamless integration with HOT Wallet, Aurora bridge, Ledger — one click to move USDC to NEAR.
  • Duration: 3–6 months pilot, with sunset schedule (100% → 50% → 25% incentives).
  • Goal: rapid TVL growth, more liquidity for developers, stronger position vs Avalanche/Solana.

Soft-cap triggers :high_voltage:

  • If circulating supply ≥ 98% of cap → accelerated multiplier.
  • If circulating supply ≥ cap (1.6B) → halt extra issuance until DAO approval; emergency mode until supply returns below 99.5% cap.

Снимок экрана (1)
Снимок экрана (1)804×422 56.5 KB

Validator Support (For community discussion):balance_scale:
Even though NEAR’s inflation is gradually decreasing and there is no fee-burn mechanism, validators remain a cornerstone of network stability. This block ensures they feel secure and incentivized throughout the transition.

Here’s the idea: if staked APR dips below a comfortable level (e.g., an APR floor in the range of 6.36%–7%), the system can temporarily step in to protect security — via two mechanisms:

  • Temporary validator top-ups (capped, transparent, DAO-approved): when on-chain APR for stakers falls below the agreed floor, a capped supplement can be applied to validator rewards to restore the APR toward the target. Top-ups are strictly limited per period and require DAO reporting.
  • Buybacks to support supply path: buyback operations reduce net supply pressure and indirectly help APR sustainability.

Funding hierarchy for both mechanisms:

  • Primary: Protocol-Owned Liquidity (POL) — reinvest yields from strategically held liquidity (Aurora AMMs, lending positions).
  • Secondary (backup): Buyback Reserve — an escrowed, multisig-held treasury tranche to be used under DAO rules.
  • Tertiary: Partner grants / institutional OTC placements with strict lock-ups (used only if POL and Reserve are insufficient).

This approach is a feature, not a patch: validators know their income won’t suddenly crash; the community gains stability without opaque or permanent fee cuts; APR and network security are safeguarded, making NEAR robust for stakers and institutional participants.

:light_bulb: In short: NEAR protects its validators, strengthens confidence, and keeps the ecosystem healthy — all while letting liquidity and APR innovations shine.

:globe_showing_europe_africa: Why this is a global trend
In recent years blockchain communities have reached a simple conclusion: predictable monetary policy — clear caps, buyback campaigns, and carefully designed fee-burn mechanisms — gives markets confidence.

Examples:
:locked: Bitcoin (BTC): fixed supply at 21M BTC — the “digital gold” standard.
:fire: Ethereum (ETH): EIP-1559 burns base fees, making ETH deflationary under load.
:fire_extinguisher: Binance Coin (BNB): quarterly burns and auto-burn policy tied to supply targets.
:snow_capped_mountain: Avalanche (AVAX): capped max supply (≈720M) + fee burn mechanism.
:ballot_box_with_ballot: Polkadot (DOT): governance-approved supply cap (2.1B) with new emission rules.
:green_circle: Cardano (ADA): capped supply at 45B ADA.
:high_voltage: Solana (SOL): declining inflation schedule, not unlimited.
:orange_circle: Polygon (MATIC): fee-burn via EIP-1559 integration.
:blue_circle: Chainlink (LINK): fixed 1B LINK supply with transparent allocations.
:fire: Litecoin (LTC): max 84M LTC, halving cycle.
:dog_face: Dogecoin (DOGE): unlimited inflationary model — a counterexample of what to avoid.
:fire: Shiba Inu (SHIB): community-driven burns from a huge initial supply.
:puzzle_piece: Other niche tokens (TVT, WLFI, TRUMP, etc.): often lack predictable supply rules, reinforcing why governance-backed transparency is critical.

These cases are not a manual for copy-paste but a set of practical approaches from which NEAR can select and adapt elements that best fit its own model.

:light_bulb: Community Benefits

  • Clear supply ceiling → predictability and protection against unexpected dilution of holders.
  • Transparent limits → stronger trust from investors and funds.
  • Voluntary participation → no forced changes for stakers.
  • Gradual scarcity → more predictable long-term value growth for long-term holders and institutions.
  • Liquidity growth → higher TVL, competitive APR, and a stronger DeFi ecosystem.

:white_check_mark: Call to Action
We invite the NEAR community to support this proposal:

  • Approve phased reduction to 3.25% inflation
  • Introduce Loyalty Program with voluntary long-term locks
  • Launch Liquidity Mining Program to boost TVL and APR

This is not a radical shift — it’s a balanced plan that protects validators, strengthens NEAR’s economy, and aligns us with global best practices. :rocket:

:sparkles:Numbers are rounded to avoid clutter, but key calculations (APR ≈6..36 - 7.06% at 44-46% staked, inflation drop 5%→3.25%,and verifiable.

7 Likes
2

I’ve read through this “Tokenomics 2.0” proposal carefully. The structure looks neat, but the underlying idea is the same mistake as before — cutting emissions in an ecosystem that hasn’t yet built real token sinks or sticky demand is an own goal.

You’re taking capital away from the most aligned participants (stakers and validators) at the very moment you need them most. You’re hoping this will “signal” discipline to investors. But investors don’t price discipline — they price growth and usage. A cosmetic tweak to APY doesn’t make NEAR more investable. It just makes it weaker internally.

⸝

Let’s be blunt about the dynamics:
• Ethereum and Solana can taper because their tokens are used. ETH burns fees and settles L2s. SOL gets consumed by high‑volume NFT, meme and DePIN activity. They have sinks.
• NEAR does not — at least not at sufficient scale yet. Rhea is promising. Jambo is promising. But these are seedlings, not trees.
• Cutting emissions now doesn’t create usage. It doesn’t build velocity. It just hands the ecosystem less oxygen and hopes growth will somehow happen anyway.

That’s why this is an own goal. You’re pruning the tree before it has fruit.

⸝

The “top‑ups” and “buybacks” in the proposal are basically an admission that this design is brittle. If yield collapses, we’ll patch it with treasury money. But that’s not a plan — that’s a subsidy. And if the community expects subsidies, the whole “discipline” narrative collapses.

⸝

A real tokenomics upgrade would look like this:
• Build token sinks first. Hard‑wire burns, fee sharing, usage staking into every high‑volume protocol.
• Tie emissions taper to measurable growth metrics (users, volume, burn).
• Make fallback mechanisms truly rare, not routine.
• Only reduce emissions when usage can actually absorb the supply.

Until then, emission cuts aren’t “discipline.” They’re austerity without growth. And austerity without growth is a death spiral.

⸝

Bottom line: This proposal still pulls a lever that isn’t attached to anything. Cutting emissions at this stage isn’t just ineffective — it’s counterproductive. If we want to fix NEAR’s tokenomics, we should start with demand, not supply.

3 Likes
3

With around 46% of NEAR currently staked, our modeled APR (~7%) is a competitive yield — not a cut from the most loyal participants. The proposal actually introduces mechanisms that attract more capital to stakers and validators. More to follow…

Straight to the point:
• This isn’t redistribution against validators — it’s a move toward long-term stability, predictability, and renewed capital inflows.
• The annual burn from base fees is minimal (~0.1%), so “just cutting emissions” solves nothing. That’s why we combine it with real demand drivers — loyalty programs, liquidity pilots, and fee-sharing at the protocol level.
• Top-ups and buybacks are strictly limited, transparent emergency tools — not recurring subsidies.

Now, let’s talk about numbers that can’t be ignored.
It’s been 105 days since the first mention (HotWallet) of lowering inflation. During that time, the current inflation rate has produced roughly 18 million NEAR tokens — that’s about $50 million in new supply at ~$2.8 each.
That’s not just a number — it’s real pressure on the market, week after week. Inaction is quietly eroding the network from within. Eighteen million new tokens added weight on top of regular large-pool staking sell-offs that already push the price down.
This is exactly why a structured change is necessary — not another endless loop of the same arguments.

Investors don’t reward hesitation; they reward clarity and execution. Tokenomics 2.0 delivers both — preserving yield while creating sustainable demand for NEAR. That’s what maturity looks like for an ecosystem ready to grow.

1 Like
4

I appreciate the effort behind this proposal, but the underlying argument is still flawed. It assumes NEAR’s emissions are excessive and dragging price — yet the data shows NEAR’s emissions are trivial compared to other chains. And the idea that all emissions create sell pressure is economically false.

⸝

:abacus: Let’s talk numbers — real USD emissions:

You said NEAR emits ~$50M over 105 days, or about $475k/day. Here’s how that compares:

:small_blue_diamond: Ethereum (ETH)
• Supply: ~120M
• Price: $4,700
• Inflation: ~0.35–0.8%
• Annual emissions:
• Low: ~$1.97 billion
• High: ~$4.51 billion
• Daily emissions:
• ~$5.4M–$12.4M/day

:small_blue_diamond: Solana (SOL)
• Supply: ~590M
• Price: $230
• Inflation: ~4.5%
• Annual emissions: ~$6.1 billion
• Daily emissions: ~$16.7M/day

:small_orange_diamond: NEAR
• Daily emissions: ~$475k/day

NEAR emits in a week what Solana emits before lunch.

So let’s stop pretending NEAR’s token issuance is some existential liability. That narrative collapses when you zoom out.

⸝

:cross_mark: It’s fallacious to equate emissions with sell pressure

The idea that all emissions hit the market is just wrong.
• Many NEAR tokens are staked, vested, or recycled through validators, not dumped.
• Emissions are distributed, not liquidated.
• The real market pressure comes from velocity and sinks, not issuance alone.

Ethereum and Solana thrive despite far higher emissions because they have token sinks:
• ETH gets burned with every transaction and used to settle rollups.
• SOL is consumed by high-frequency activity — NFTs, DeFi, DePIN, memes.

NEAR doesn’t have those at scale yet. That’s the real issue — not 5% emissions.

⸝

:warning: Cutting emissions now is counterproductive

You say this proposal preserves yield while stimulating demand. In reality:
• You’re shrinking rewards to stakers and validators — the most aligned holders.
• You’re offering no concrete demand-side offset to justify the cut.
• You rely on treasury top-ups and buybacks to plug the hole — which is just subsidy disguised as policy.

This is not discipline. It’s austerity without a growth engine.

⸝

:electric_plug: You’re pulling a lever that isn’t attached to anything

Cutting emissions is a lever. But levers only matter if they’re connected to something that moves.
Right now, NEAR lacks:
• Large-scale fee burn or usage-linked staking
• High token velocity
• Sticky token sinks like Solana’s or Ethereum’s

So this emissions cut just removes capital from the system without redirecting it anywhere useful.

That’s not discipline. It’s a self-inflicted wound.

⸝

:white_check_mark: What NEAR actually needs:
• Build token sinks first: Rhea, Jambo, fee-linked staking, usage incentives
• Only taper emissions once sinks and usage exist
• Tie reductions to real metrics (volume, fees, burn rate, user growth)
• Reinvest savings visibly — into DeFi, builders, liquidity depth

⸝

:brain: Bottom line:

NEAR’s emissions are not the problem. The lack of token sinks and demand is.

Ethereum and Solana can taper because their tokens are used. NEAR is not there yet — and until it is, cutting emissions is an own goal, not a strategy.

Let’s stop mistaking optics and narrative for progress.

5

I think there is a little bit of both points to take into consideration here. High inflation only leads to dillution of the pool that sustains the token. Of course not all the Near that goes into circulation goes to this pool, but a percentage does. I think it would be important to measure this as well.

If we look at the previous BTC ATH, in 2021, it was doubled now. If we see ETH, it was slightly increased since 2021. Solana also, but a little more than ETH. Near reached half it’s ATH and fell way before all the other tokens.

This is most likely because Near is lacking activity and we need to work on things that bring people into the network. We need Near to have higher demand. For this, we need good applications, that tempt people to come here. This is difficult to find and people would need to invest on this ideas to be made on Near.

I live in a country that most of my life, inflation was high and activity was low. I see the consequences of this: high poverty and tons of corruption, people trying to find any way to make a little bit more of cash. High inflation can only be good if there is a very high activity, but still makes the value of the asset to be dilluted. Maybe not all Near being emitted dillutes the pool, but if I see that this pool is more easily dilluted here than in another place, I’ll go to the other place, because I’m not into high risk.

Having slowly reduced inflation, is healthy for the system. It is not enough, but it is a first step to stop the bleeding. We already have a couple of years were tons of tokens were given away with near social, which didn’t thrive at all, and that made a lot of damage.

If there is a big idea that comes to propose something good, something that makes Near gain value, something that makes people from other chains to want to come to Near, then it would be a good idea to invest on that. In the meantime, having high inflation will only dillute a pool, and make it less enticing for others to come here.

In general, for a healthy system, inflation should be low, and you need activity.

Personally, I would not define a monthly inflation reduction, but an anually inflation reduction. If not mistaken, Solana reduces its inflation by 15% every year. This leads to a 48% inflation reduction every 4 years. BTC reduces its inflation 50% every 4 years. Since we haven’t reduced inflation over many years, I suggest to reduce it by 20% every year, similar to Solana, but a little bit higher to compensate. This would lead to a 59% reduced inflation every 4 years, slightly bigger than BTC.

In the meantime, it is important to propose and generate DAOs. I don’t like things I’m seeing such a rnear for example, since it’s higher APY it is not naturally given by the system, but incentived by this inflation. It has 1% higher apy than other liquid staking tokens and another 1% if you lend it. We already have good liquid staking tokens. We need to innovate and compete with other chains, not between ourselves.

I’d rather have grants given in a more responsable way for products well thought. Maybe products that target web2 users that already spend money and they could have it easier with crypto, rather than giving it away to people already in the chain

2 Likes
6

you keep saying the same thing over and over again. Is there a way to solve the problem you’re talking about?
If you think that’s your first job, find a solution and post about the solution. do your job.
Can you change it right now? What do you want? Go directly to the Near Protocol CEO or ask developer. It’s a problem that can’t solve right now.

The inflation problem can be improved right away with enough votes.

What you’re saying is that the demand for tokens isn’t high after all. Why are you saying that so long? Everyone know that. even a 10-year-old kid can knows

Both are current problems. we should think about catching both problems.He’s trying to solve the inflation part first, Even ChatGPT thinks the current alt coin’s problem is excessive inflation in markets

7

Thank you for your efforts to find and analyze data to solve problems. I support your opinion