If blocks are produced three times faster, will three times as many tokens be issued? Looking at $ZEC , I’d rather do the math first.
According to Binance spot data captured at 08:07 Beijing time on October 12, ZEC rose about 1.49% during the full hour from 07:00 to 08:00, with trading volume of about 7.71 million USDT—1.59 times the average for the previous five complete hours. Trading activity picked up, but that doesn’t prove the market is trading on any particular upgrade.
I rechecked the notes for Zebra 7.0.0-rc.0, released by the Zcash Foundation on October 2. These are materials for an older release candidate and testnet, not an announcement that the upgrade is going live on mainnet today. The notes discuss reducing the target block interval from 75 seconds to 25 seconds, while cutting the corresponding reward per block to one-third and tripling the remaining halving interval in block terms, preserving the daily baseline issuance schedule.
This shows why token economics can’t be understood by looking only at the “per block” figure: if the number of blocks per day increases, the reward per block can decrease proportionally. Payment speed and baseline issuance are two separate things. Faster confirmations may improve the user experience, but they don’t by themselves imply increased supply or prove that real payment demand has grown.
The fee mechanism needs to be considered separately. The notes allocate 60% of transaction fees to a reserve, from which they are subsequently reissued gradually according to the rules. That is different from permanently burning them. Temporarily removing tokens from circulation and permanently reducing supply shouldn’t be treated as the same kind of bullish factor. This explains the proposal in that release candidate; it does not assess whether the current mainnet has adopted it.
My limited conclusion is that upgrades should be evaluated by separately checking confirmation speed, baseline issuance, where fees go, and real-world usage. Even if the design improves the user experience, how the market reflects that still depends on implementation and demand. Another explanation is that the current rise is due to short-term supply and demand or other information; there’s no evidence in this analysis to rule that out.
Next, I’d first verify the official release and whether it has actually been activated, then look at payment usage, fees, and changes in the reserve. If the official rules change any of the parameters above, the calculations need to be redone. If only the price changes, that doesn’t prove the mechanism is having an effect. Market data is from Binance.
Original: https://zfnd.org/zebra-7-0-0-rc-0-nu7-arrives-on-testnet/
According to Binance spot data captured at 08:07 Beijing time on October 12, ZEC rose about 1.49% during the full hour from 07:00 to 08:00, with trading volume of about 7.71 million USDT—1.59 times the average for the previous five complete hours. Trading activity picked up, but that doesn’t prove the market is trading on any particular upgrade.
I rechecked the notes for Zebra 7.0.0-rc.0, released by the Zcash Foundation on October 2. These are materials for an older release candidate and testnet, not an announcement that the upgrade is going live on mainnet today. The notes discuss reducing the target block interval from 75 seconds to 25 seconds, while cutting the corresponding reward per block to one-third and tripling the remaining halving interval in block terms, preserving the daily baseline issuance schedule.
This shows why token economics can’t be understood by looking only at the “per block” figure: if the number of blocks per day increases, the reward per block can decrease proportionally. Payment speed and baseline issuance are two separate things. Faster confirmations may improve the user experience, but they don’t by themselves imply increased supply or prove that real payment demand has grown.
The fee mechanism needs to be considered separately. The notes allocate 60% of transaction fees to a reserve, from which they are subsequently reissued gradually according to the rules. That is different from permanently burning them. Temporarily removing tokens from circulation and permanently reducing supply shouldn’t be treated as the same kind of bullish factor. This explains the proposal in that release candidate; it does not assess whether the current mainnet has adopted it.
My limited conclusion is that upgrades should be evaluated by separately checking confirmation speed, baseline issuance, where fees go, and real-world usage. Even if the design improves the user experience, how the market reflects that still depends on implementation and demand. Another explanation is that the current rise is due to short-term supply and demand or other information; there’s no evidence in this analysis to rule that out.
Next, I’d first verify the official release and whether it has actually been activated, then look at payment usage, fees, and changes in the reserve. If the official rules change any of the parameters above, the calculations need to be redone. If only the price changes, that doesn’t prove the mechanism is having an effect. Market data is from Binance.
Original: https://zfnd.org/zebra-7-0-0-rc-0-nu7-arrives-on-testnet/