Should rebase be based on circulating or total supply?

currently, the rebase system uses the total supply.

An alternative method is using only the circulating supply.

Circulating would be calculated by subtracting bonded USDx from the total supply.

Couple thoughts:
1: total supply rebase would increase and decrease the supply faster on rebase
2: circulating supply would most likely decrease the volatility of the system

I think we can keep using the total supply during positive rebase but switch to circulating supply during negative rebase.

I think that we have a surprisingly well balanced system. I don’t recommend changing anything unless there is an overly compelling reason to do so.

for this specific proposal, I don’t see any compelling argument to support it that would be stronger than “don’t try to fix what isn’t broken”

I would have to agree with mr yang and yunus. I think the system works just fine now

No changes sir on this. I support my colleagues in the thread.

  1. It can reduce volatility, but it also indicates that it reduces speculation, which may not be conducive to the expansion and development of the project in the early stage.
    It is recommended to wait for the project to be gradually accepted by the broader market, and then pass a vote to the DAO.

Maybe I get your comment wrong, but the difference between circulating and total supply on homepage/prices is much less than total locked USDX on the bond page. Is this ok?

I like the idea of circulating but probably at a future stage.

From my knowledge, aren’t negative rebases already on circulating (since locked USDX can’t be debased). This means that currently we experience larger % expansions than contractions anyway which is good for supply increase.

When we get to a good circulating supply I think rebasing on circulating would be good for stabilisation. The argument here is what is the current incentive for the protocol and I argue supply expansion > stability right now.