FalseProfit

Worshipping at the altar of perpetual distraction. NPC in a main-character energy world. $TAO $HNT $YOURMOM

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@bryan_johnson "I take Cialis but not for sex" is the modern equivalent of "I did not inhale"

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@KyleSamani This doesn't really solve the problem. The coordination tax exists for a reason, it is the checks and balances of an organization. You need more than $1k in tokens to solve this because you need more tokens to account for the impacts to finance, corp strategy, ops, etc.

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@amasad You're not turning off anything because you are actually the passenger here. You're being turned off. Don't get it twisted.

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@KyleSamani @AviFelman What about reasoning by mantra?

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@koreavaluehunt All of these are fine. The deal breaker is double taxation for US Citizens. I would be all-in if the tax treatment didn't suck.

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@BenjaminBadejo Because local models suck big time. ~260k context isn't going to cut it for any moderately challenging agentic task without quickly devolving into circular behaviors.

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@MarcoGreenz @ZwigoZwitscher @didiomario @novalabs_ @helium @NovaLabs Okay so why are we proposing changes that presume the price will go down? Don't you understand that this is a terrible signal to the market?

@didiomario

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

The $HNT community needs to wake up. First Nova labs burned IoT hotspot hosts, then it burned $MOBILE token holders, then it burned CBRS hotspot hosts, now it's coming for HNT holders in one last fiery supernova. @novalabs_ is rotten to the core. Time for change. @didiomario.

[aut0 @aut0m8d]

this chart posted 4 days ago is based on a 5x inflated revenue number

the new proposal says that if the price drops below 30 cents, it will increase payouts to deployers (increasing inflation). those payouts increase exponentially as the price approaches 0. the price is already 49 cents. the new proposal also includes a nearly 100% supply increase. generally, that sort of thing will nearly half the price. so it will increasingly inflate below 30 cents, and we're probably starting at 25 or so. deployers will sell their larger and larger payouts of tokens when they receive them. this feedback loop will send the token to zero draining any remaining liquidity in service of trying to keep the network afloat. they are doing this without saying it. being "fully focused" on $HNT means draining the remainder of the liquidity into deployers pockets to ~zero

I imagine the core team believes it's over and that's why they all resigned

so yeah they weren't telling the truth then, they aren't now type of deal

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@dvasishtha "The construction of my house cost more than the materials"

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@KyleSamani @TrustlessState You mean like $HNT?

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@geoffreywoo The problem is that VCs are looking for outliers to return the whole fund when they could be making higher conviction bets with smaller return profiles and do just fine

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@themoneygps @anothercohen Not to mention the SDK will be broken in a thousand different ways. This idea is DoA

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@ZwigoZwitscher @didiomario @novalabs_ @MarcoGreenz @helium @NovaLabs At HNTs current price, would your proposal reduce burn?

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@BidAsk_Spread @KyleSamani They can and should do better.

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

The $HNT community needs to wake up. First Nova labs burned IoT hotspot hosts, then it burned $MOBILE token holders, then it burned CBRS hotspot hosts, now it's coming for HNT holders in one last fiery supernova. @novalabs_ is rotten to the core. Time for change. @didiomario.

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@ZwigoZwitscher @ChrisFxTrader77 @didiomario @novalabs_ @MarcoGreenz @helium @NovaLabs So unwind it? @didiomario

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

If I understand correctly, your proposal is that if HNT continues to go down, that hosts will be guaranteed a minimum payment, meaning that the amount issued to hosts would be equal to the amount burned, effectively turning off burn (the only thing supporting the price) Do I have that right?

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@sourceshipsell @helium Check the chart. It ain't pretty.

https://t.co/9ZSzmFljRx

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

That is how I felt too, but these recent proposals are a slap in the face.

I think we can both agree, HNTs price does not currently reflect the market opportunity...

It reflects the markets concerns about Nova's credibility.

Before any major HIPs are passed, Nova would be wise to make radical governance changes to signal a major commitment to earning back the community's trust after years of squandering its credibility.

Happy to chat further on this offline.

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

That is how I felt too, but these recent proposals are a slap in the face.

I think we can both agree, HNTs price does not currently reflect the market opportunity...

It reflects the markets concerns about Nova's credibility.

Before any major HIPs are passed, Nova would be wise to make radical governance changes to signal a major commitment to earning back the community's trust after years of squandering its credibility.

Happy to chat further on this offline.

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@ZwigoZwitscher @helium @NovaLabs Yeah, except this is the point of burn-mint equilibrium. The price will never reach $0.00005/hnt because the circulating supply will put upward pressure back on the price. Why create a floor for something that sounds like an edge case under the current design?

[Siegfried 🐘 🎈 🧬♦️ @ZwigoZwitscher]

@aut0m8d @MarcoGreenz @helium @NovaLabs 10/ Holders of $HNT would be in an enourmous power position, because they can look at the remaing $HNT supply, and do the maths what $ price is needed that the remaining amount of $HNT available on the market can carry the $ value needed to pay the network.⬇️

[FalseProfit @BooleanProphet]

@aut0m8d This proposal needs serious controls. Vesting and objective goals should be the path forward.

[Brian | Life & DePIN @DePIN_Crypto]

I’ve been reading through the proposed HIP and I think there are some legitimate questions the community should be discussing.

If I understand the numbers correctly, this proposal would introduce approximately 141M additional HNT over the next 36 months. With roughly 196M HNT currently circulating, that’s a substantial increase in supply.

The concern isn’t whether Helium needs capital to grow. Every network needs resources to expand. The concern is whether the value created by this new issuance will exceed the dilution experienced by existing holders and network participants.

At today’s price of roughly $0.51, simple supply math suggests that if network revenue, burns, and market valuation remain unchanged, the token could face meaningful downward pressure over time. That’s not FUD. That’s how dilution works.

The key question is not “Does Helium need funding?”

The key question is:

What measurable outcomes should the community expect in exchange for issuing 141M additional HNT?

Revenue targets?
Subscriber growth targets?
Data Credit burn targets?
Enterprise partnerships?
Geographic expansion milestones?

More importantly, should the release of these funds be tied to achieving those milestones?

If the network delivers on predefined success metrics, unlock the next tranche of funding. If it doesn’t, the community should have the opportunity to reassess before additional dilution occurs.

That’s how capital is typically deployed in the private sector. Investors don’t usually write a blank check on day one. Funding is often released in stages as milestones are achieved and value is demonstrated.

If token holders are being diluted, there should be a clear framework for measuring success and accountability. Otherwise, the community is being asked to accept significant dilution based largely on future expectations.

Many of us invested in Helium because we believed network usage would eventually drive token demand. If supply is increasing significantly faster than demand, the burden of proof shifts to demonstrating how this issuance ultimately creates more value than it extracts.

I hope the conversation focuses less on personalities and more on economics.

How much value does 141M HNT need to create for this proposal to be considered successful, and should the community require that value to be demonstrated before the full amount is distributed?