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 Started9 Jan 2021 / Block 665347
Cycle Ended10 Feb 2021 / Block 670026
Supply Change+ 272,724
Governance30 of 32 proposals accepted
|BSQ Amount||# of transactions|
|Compensation request fees||46||23|
|Blind vote fees||28||14|
|Reimbursement request fees||12||6|
|Net BSQ Supply Change⁵||+272,724|
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.
This proposal increased the maximum BSQ issuance parameter from 300,000 to 400,000.
Reasoning: the invalidation of Cycle 20 results led to a need for more issuance in Cycle 21. A handful of contributors also avoided making compensation requests to avoid hitting the issuance limit again. While another invalidated cycle isn’t expected, it would be good to have the capability to handle extra issuance capacity if/when needed. Needing to accommodate more reimbursement requests than usual is another potential use case for the increased issuance limit.
Aside from these use cases, the Bisq DAO has proven itself to be robust enough over the past 20 cycles (almost 2 years) to justify increasing the limit (the limit is intended to be a security measure).