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 Started16 Sep 2019 / Block 595147
Cycle Ended17 Oct 2019 / Block 599826
Supply Change+ 66,147
Governance24 of 26 proposals accepted
|BSQ Amount||# of transactions|
|Asset listing fees||160||5|
|Compensation request fees||48||24|
|Blind vote fees||28||14|
|Net BSQ Supply Change⁵||+66,147|
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 somewhat contentious proposal to more tightly integrate Monero with Bisq garnered only 5 votes from the 13 ballots cast in this cycle, and 98.85% of the voting weight of those 5 votes opposed the proposal (proposals need less than 49.99% of opposing voting weight to be approved).
The proposal raised larger questions about conventions to integrate relatively large, experimental, and perhaps risky components into the code base. An incubator space was proposed but is now being reconsidered. Several contributors have suggested opening a dialogue on the subject after the launch of v1.2.
Much work was contributed in this cycle for the new trade protocol and account signing, two massive elements of the v1.2 release, resulting in relatively high BSQ issuance for compensating those efforts. An unfortunate drop in trading volume resulted in less BSQ taken out of supply, leading to a cycle with considerable inflation.