Thanks for the great feedback, Biohazmatt.
We’ll share our simulations regarding emissions and burning shortly. I want to address one specific question while the team responds to the others:
“How will those earned rewards be handled transparently? Will they be recycled strictly back into ecosystem development, or could they re-enter circulating supply?”
My goal is for the Foundation nodes to accomplish two things. First, provide baseline agent capacity for the network. Second, generate enough emissions to fund the team’s operations year-to-year. Should MAGIC appreciate substantially, those nodes could also generate enough revenue to fund new investments at the dapp layer.
Therefore, rewards would re-enter circulating supply to fund operations. However, these are simply informal goals and will change. We shouldn’t commit to a rigid allocation strategy today because the project reality will change.
I want to make a larger point here. Treasure should not be a building with glass walls anymore. In 2025, Treasure Foundation transitioned into an independent body responsible for overseeing decisions involving its assets. I believe this is the right model, analogous to a public company with a private boardroom.
Every organization faces difficult decisions, and no plan survives entirely intact.
My conviction here was solidified after hearing Vitalik discuss disagreements among Ethereum’s founders over when to divest their BTC holdings during Ethereum’s early days. The project reportedly came close to bankruptcy pre-ICOs because of these disagreements. Had I known about this drama before buying ETH, I don’t think I would’ve invested.
Similarly, as an ETH holder today, I don’t think I benefit from constant public arguments about which projects the Ethereum Foundation should or shouldn’t fund. I believe in Ethereum because of smart contracts, not because I agree with every decision its leadership makes regarding grants or pay. Frankly, I would prefer not to know those things as it’s distracting from Ethereum’s real narrative.
Imagine that Treasure Network becomes so successful that DeFi builders begin using it for autonomous financial applications. Should the Foundation have to defend using its revenue to bootstrap these use cases just because we started as a gaming project?
This is precisely the dynamic we experienced in 2023–2024 when disagreements over which projects deserved funding became a constant source of community conflict.
Or imagine the Foundation decides, “this is the year where we finally decentralize our keygen method, let’s double the engineering team and do it.” What would happen? In my opinion, troublemakers would point at the revenue and the fact that it’s solely going to “the team” and try to stir up conflicts about insider enrichment that make our community look juvenile and embarrassing. Sophisticated investors and funds read those conversations and decide that the team is operationally incompetent for having created a zoo-like governance structure and being unable to undo it. I say, let’s undo it now and not repeat his mistake in Years 5 to 10.
I will say this to conclude: if the community solely consisted of you and others whom I personally know and believe are sincere, competent stewards of MAGIC, there’s no issue. But we now know that global, anonymous token communities do not behave rationally or like a private board room. Transparency and governance should be designed around this learning.