Hey everyone, long time no see.
It’s been a month since I last posted, without me even realizing it.
It’s not that I didn’t want to write; I genuinely didn’t have much to say. My funds are limited, so my room to maneuver is limited too. Better not come on here and talk nonsense—just quietly keep an eye on things.
But I just spotted a project when I came on today, so I’d better quickly catch up and do some homework. There are a few things worth watching, and over the next few posts, we’ll break them down one by one.
What does computing power have to do with it?
$ACU has a few specific roles here: paying for computing, rewarding computing-power providers, supporting computing-power supply through staking, and participating in network governance.
What’s worth unpacking is who pays and who gets rewarded.
According to the official model, the computing fees paid by developers are burned after tasks are successfully completed, while the base rewards and staking rewards for computing-power providers come from token issuance.
This design links the two sides: rewards attract devices, while paid tasks consume tokens. If the number of customers who pay continuously grows, computing fees and the amount burned could also increase.
Staking lets token holders participate further in supplying computing power, and also supports delegated participation. Governance determines how the network’s parameters are adjusted. These uses give $ACU a role within the network, but staking rewards include newly issued tokens, so they shouldn’t be treated directly as business profits.
So when I assess what supports its value, I look at “device growth” and “demand growth” separately.
More connected phones mean supply is increasing.
Only customers who keep paying show that computing power is actually being sold.
Next, we’ll look at paid tasks, repeat customers, and the amount of computing fees burned.
The data can help us judge whether the network is growing by adding more reward recipients, or by generating real demand for its services.
It’s been a month since I last posted, without me even realizing it.
It’s not that I didn’t want to write; I genuinely didn’t have much to say. My funds are limited, so my room to maneuver is limited too. Better not come on here and talk nonsense—just quietly keep an eye on things.
But I just spotted a project when I came on today, so I’d better quickly catch up and do some homework. There are a few things worth watching, and over the next few posts, we’ll break them down one by one.
What does computing power have to do with it?
$ACU has a few specific roles here: paying for computing, rewarding computing-power providers, supporting computing-power supply through staking, and participating in network governance.
What’s worth unpacking is who pays and who gets rewarded.
According to the official model, the computing fees paid by developers are burned after tasks are successfully completed, while the base rewards and staking rewards for computing-power providers come from token issuance.
This design links the two sides: rewards attract devices, while paid tasks consume tokens. If the number of customers who pay continuously grows, computing fees and the amount burned could also increase.
Staking lets token holders participate further in supplying computing power, and also supports delegated participation. Governance determines how the network’s parameters are adjusted. These uses give $ACU a role within the network, but staking rewards include newly issued tokens, so they shouldn’t be treated directly as business profits.
So when I assess what supports its value, I look at “device growth” and “demand growth” separately.
More connected phones mean supply is increasing.
Only customers who keep paying show that computing power is actually being sold.
Next, we’ll look at paid tasks, repeat customers, and the amount of computing fees burned.
The data can help us judge whether the network is growing by adding more reward recipients, or by generating real demand for its services.