Gnoland on the other hand, is looking to adopt a dual token model similar to the initial Cosmos idea where the “fee utility” is stript off from the governance token.

As suggested by Jae Kwon, a dual token model that uses a fee token with a fixed-constant-inflation (not exponential as in staking tokens) will have the following advantages over a single token model:

1. Majority of end-users are tech-ignorant, meaning that most of them are clueless to which validators they should be supporting and how to evaluate governance proposals. Simply put, the dual token model mitigates the operational risks by offloading the governance responsibilities from the end-users to nodes, validators, and network stakeholders who have an actual understanding of the blockchain.

2. The point of the governance token is to be staked on the Network for the security of the blockchain. What’s ironic about a single token model is that the more traction a blockchain gets, the more tokens are likely to get unstaked to be used as gas fees, which leads to a decrease of the security of the Network. Having a dual token model addresses this issue.

3. A fixed-constant-inflationary fee token that’s solely dedicated to fueling the contracts of the blockchain will allow users to hold the token in a wallet for future usages without worrying about the value of tokens getting inflated away.

We’re researching more on the dual token model suggested by Jae Kwon, and ways to implement it on Gnoland to maximize sustainability and usability of the tokenomics.

Gnoland on the other hand, is looking to adopt a dual token model similar to the initial Cosmos idea where the “fee utility” is stript off from the governance token.

As suggested by Jae Kwon, a dual token model that uses a fee token with a fixed-constant-inflation (not exponential as in staking tokens) will have the following advantages over a single token model:

1. Majority of end-users are tech-ignorant, meaning that most of them are clueless to which validators they should be supporting and how to evaluate governance proposals. Simply put, the dual token model mitigates the operational risks by offloading the governance responsibilities from the end-users to nodes, validators, and network stakeholders who have an actual understanding of the blockchain.

2. The point of the governance token is to be staked on the Network for the security of the blockchain. What’s ironic about a single token model is that the more traction a blockchain gets, the more tokens are likely to get unstaked to be used as gas fees, which leads to a decrease of the security of the Network. Having a dual token model addresses this issue.

3. A fixed-constant-inflationary fee token that’s solely dedicated to fueling the contracts of the blockchain will allow users to hold the token in a wallet for future usages without worrying about the value of tokens getting inflated away.

We’re researching more on the dual token model suggested by Jae Kwon, and ways to implement it on Gnoland to maximize sustainability and usability of the tokenomics.