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 Started17 Jul 2019 / Block 585787
Cycle Ended16 Aug 2019 / Block 590466
Supply Change— 13,110
Governance20 of 22 proposals accepted
|BSQ Amount||# of transactions|
|Compensation request fees||38||19|
|Blind vote fees||34||17|
|Net BSQ Supply Change⁵||—13,110|
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 determined details for implementing a testing arrangement for the Bisq software.
There were some issues with seed nodes that sometimes caused the DAO state to go out of sync on certain Bisq nodes. These issues surfaced in this cycle when a contributor made a compensation request, deleted it, and then made another one—but both requests remained available for voting. The situation was clarified on GitHub, so stakeholders knew to reject the old proposal and approve the new one. The underlying issue on the network’s seed nodes has already been fixed. Vote results and BSQ issued were not affected.
Fee increases from the previous cycle, despite fees still being below targets, resulted in the first-ever deflationary period for the BSQ colored coin. Of course, development efforts were depressed in this period, so issuance was relatively low, but it was still nice to see.