[RFC-02] Incremental Burn of Unallocated Investor DUST

[Akey]

Thank you for the explanation.

If the Neverland team is confident that the protocol’s long-term growth and strategic opportunities will not depend on these currently unused DUST tokens, then I believe a burn is a reasonable approach.

My main concern was preserving enough flexibility for future growth initiatives, partnerships, or strategic opportunities. However, if those considerations have already been taken into account and the unused allocation is not expected to be necessary going forward, then I would be supportive of reducing the supply through a burn.

[stefk0128]

@Alice

supply over 52 weeks at 42,069 DUST per week, meaningfully reducing total supply and dilution risk while preserving optionality for future investor terms or post-emissions ecosystem incentives. Governance participants should weigh the manual-versus-automated execution tradeoff and confirm comfort with the retained allocation’s future governance before progression toward a Governance Vote.

Supportive of the 35% incremental burn. It’s a great middle ground that protects our long-term treasury flexibility while sending a strong, positive signal to the market.

[polka_paca]

Are we going to vote on this right after NGV-01 is done?

[NalX]

Not sure if we have a specific date for the NVG yet, but likely soon, yes.

[Catalyst]

I think this is mature enough to move to a vote. My view is that, because of the nature of this proposal, when in disagreement, we should seek approval for the lower proposed amount and, if the community wishes, follow up for a greater one. Vice versa has blockers as DUST can’t be unburned.