Setting aside the business aspect, ROAM itself adopts a point design to record contributions, and due to the long development cycle, it has a large number of community points, so how to handle the relationship between its point design and tokens has been something I have been paying attention to.
In the past few days, the $PI that has risen against the trend actually has unresolved point debts; they are being destroyed by timing KYC.
This achieves a balance between points and tokens (because Pi sets 1 point = 1 token, with a total fixed amount of 100 billion, but this 100 billion does not completely belong to the community).
With the example of Pi, although Roam @weRoamxyz does not have as massive a point surplus as Pi, the accumulation over the years has also reached tens of billions.
1. Total amount and distribution.
Regarding the specific distribution of tokens, there were no detailed rules previously, so this aspect was not mentioned in previous tweets. The latest disclosed distribution from mid-month is as follows.
(1) The total supply is 1 billion $ROAM.
(2) Among them, 12% belongs to the team, 28% belongs to investors, and the remaining 60%, which is 600 million, is allocated to the community.
It has been distributed in a very straightforward manner, with a clear lock-up period for the portion belonging to the team, and no additional allocations such as ecological funds or liquidity.
The 600 million here is not a one-time airdrop. As I mentioned before, it is exchanged for tokens through [point burning], and the biggest difference from Pi is that Roam dynamically changes based on redemption demand.
The general principle is that when the demand for redemption is strong, the redemption ratio of a single point to $ROAM is less, which can reduce the resistance encountered when the token is in an upward trend, and can further reduce the ongoing selling pressure in a downward trend to avoid a 'death spiral'.
Because these two trend markets are the stages where holders are most eager to sell.
2. Asset categories and distribution.
In the economic design phase of Roam, the Pilot burning pool was launched before TGE, setting up the [mining machine and sticker] corresponding burning pools, and together with the points, formed three burning pools with different ratios during the TGE phase.
According to the publicly available data from the Pilot burning pool: the mining machine (NFT) pool, sticker pool, and ordinary pool produce tokens in the ratio of 5:3:2.
These are actually further divisions of the 60% community share, so the meaning is quite clear, the weight proportion belonging to the mining machines must be greater, and we can also further subdivide this.
Of the 60% belonging to the community: 30% belongs to mining machine NFTs, 18% to stickers, and 12% to ordinary points.
That is: 300 million belongs to mining machine NFTs, 180 million to stickers, and 120 million to ordinary points.
Therefore, after calculating this account, I think there is no need to overly worry about the design of community points distribution. Not to mention the dynamic redemption ratio based on supply and demand, the so-called 'cost-free' part accounts for about 12%, and it is also not all in circulation at TGE.
(According to the latest burning data, Roam has destroyed one-third of the points.)
3. Reverse 'dual economic design'.
Strictly speaking, Roam adopts a dual economic drive model of points + tokens after TGE, which fundamentally differs from the [dual-token model].
In addition to retaining adjustments for the subsequent release of tokens, a reverse token destruction mechanism has also been designed.
That is: all applications within the Roam ecosystem, including games, social, AI, etc., need to use points, and then tokens can be used to redeem points in reverse.
Thus, back and forth, it is equivalent to consuming points while destroying tokens.
This design sounds very much like a dual-token design because they often have such a redemption relationship, but since Roam uses points as a carrier, the value is unidirectional and not prone to premiums.
The places where premium fluctuations occur will only be the redemption ratios that dynamically change based on the supply and demand curve, unrelated to price, and thus a set of 'point and token arbitrage' gameplay can be derived.
4. To be honest, Roam's economic design, especially the handling of points, is the most outstanding point design I have seen in the past year or two.
Therefore, I am also looking forward to what kind of market performance it will have under the drive of this model after listing.
I look forward to whether it can use this design to break away from the business carrier of DePIN and run out of a self-circulating economic model driven by arbitrage.