How to solve the risk of holding $share?

The current policy increases the risk of $share holders, and we should add more support to $share to make its value higher than $usd.
The current risks of holding $share are mainly as follows:
a) When $usd>1.05, the held $share will be pre-burned. If the value of the $share is not increased and the value of the $usd due to the appreciation of mineral demand, the holder will pre-burn more $share.
b) The $share produced by mining will generate selling pressure, and miners who hold $usd mining can obtain vested interests by selling $share. But $share holders not only bear the price drop but also the increase in burn-in.
c) When $usd>1.05, the holder of $share will pre-burn $share. When $usd<0.95, $share needs inflation to dilute the holder’s share of $share.
I believe that $share should represent a group of long-term holders, and any project should support long-term holders more. The above risks seem to be detrimental to long-term holders’ willingness to buy $share. In contrast, holding $usd represents short-term interests, but they can obtain vested interests through mining, and the risk seems to be lower than that of $share holders.
Therefore, I think we should increase the interests of $share holders as long-term holders to increase the value support for $share.

For this reason, I propose to reduce the income of miners so that their income can reach a certain balance with the value of $share.
When $usd<0.95, part of the inflationary part can be compensated to the holder of the burned $share when $usd>1.05.
Holders who provide liquidity for $share-ETH can get rebase $usd, but they must be locked together with the liquidity for 30 days before they can withdraw, and the $share is pre-burned according to the ratio of $share/$usd at the time of withdrawal. Thus increasing liquidity can also increase long-term holding power for long-term $share holders.
The above are just personal suggestions, for reference only.

The only risk in holding SHARE imo is during negative rebase.

During positive rebase, SHARE is deflationary. It doesn’t really make sense for SHARE holders to claim their USD when the dollar amount of USD is > than the dollar amount of SHARE. This incentivizes to hold, decreasing sell pressure. Every 6 months, the mining rewards are halved (I believe). This SHARE halvening will be very bullish for the price. In theory, the supply won’t be able to keep up with demand, and price will increase, incentivizing holders to continue to hold.

Also, as USD supply begins to increase as we go thru continuous positive rebase cycles, SHARE holders will get more and more rebase (also dependent on price of USD). Hodling SHARE will eventually become very profitable, especially when larger SHARE holders begin to release some of their equity to claim their USD, broadening the pie to other long term holders.

I keep my opinion and let the market tell us the result.

You don’t consider the other hand. The risk of $SHARE also could be from those farming guys. They don’t have wish to hold SHARE, just farm and sell, make the SHARE price come down, and then they leave farming pool. If APY is good enough again, these guys come back and do the same thing. This might make SHARE holders no profit.

We may need think about to add locking machenism on minted SHAREs from pools.

1 Like

Most farmers are for short-term benefits. If $share is locked, it will affect the enthusiasm of farmers. This is actually not conducive to the development of the project, but we can neutralize this risk through other measures, such as adding more for $share Multi-scenarios turn some short-term interests into long-term ones, such as deleting or weakening the yield of other crops, increasing the yield of $share crops, etc

1 Like

I suggest to take 10% SHARE from the miners’ output and set up a SHARE fund for business development and cooperation.