The figures on this page are compiled from data files generated by the Bisq software. You can verify everything yourself by running these scripts on GitHub.
Cycle Started15 Apr 2019 / Block 571747
Cycle Ended17 May 2019 / Block 576426
Supply Change+ 67,921
Governance24 of 26 proposals accepted
|BSQ Amount||# of transactions|
|Blind vote fees||32||16|
|Compensation request fees||32||16|
|Net BSQ Supply Change⁵||+67,921|
¹ Proof-of-burn includes trading fees paid in BTC and disputed BTC deposits for trades that went to arbitration (see docs for more details). Funds may be accrued and burned in different cycles, so proof-of-burn figures do not map directly to activity in their cycles.
² BSQ trading fees only. BTC trading fees are included in proof-of-burn.
³ See more details on GitHub.
⁴ Over time, the net impact of reimbursement issuances on BSQ supply is close to zero, as corresponding amounts of BTC are burned through proof-of-burn (see docs for more details).
⁵ Decreases in BSQ supply are good.
The very first DAO cycle was highly inflationary, as Manfred and other key developers worked full-time (resulting in high issuance for compensation), and little BSQ was burned since BSQ trading fees were sharply discounted to encourage adoption.
But adoption was great. Within just 6 hours of the genesis BSQ transaction, there had already been 70 trading fee payments with BSQ. To put that number into perspective, the average daily number of trades that took place on Bisq in April was also 70 (!).
BSQ bonds were locked for several Bitcoin node operators, the domain name holder, and the Bisq maintainer role. BSQ bonds are a mechanism meant to discourage foul play in high-trust roles. In a traditional corporate situation, this function would be fulfilled by legal contracts and human trust.