How do we implement this without increasing inflation by a significant amount? Would each market have a new coin associated with them ? I personally think we should keep the markets tied together and make adjustments to the inflation schedule if we find APY is too low to entice stakers.

Separating markets would also have the effect of making certain markets more profitable and have them compete against each other. Ultimately this forces people to support projects they might not have supported in order to chase yield. I am not against the idea completely, I would just have to see how the math works out before I can have a fully fledged opinion.

Color for Dev Community

I'll tell you how Dev Protocol works, but you can also find this information at Docs.

How Dev Protocol's Inflation Works
Inflation is a counter-balance between assets onboarded and DEV staked. If one asset is onboarded then there's .00012 DEV minted per second which is minimal inflation. New Markets under this DIP would have significant inflation ONLY if assets outpace > DEV staked.

Dev Protocol's value proposition is that there is yield for supporting open assets. Yield acts as an incentive to bring money into the protocol. This value proposition is improved by this proposal. The current model is detrimental as it devalues a creator's work by lumping uncorrelated markets together. It's equivalent to valuing an artist relative to the work of Linux Foundation. Markets should have their own APYs that represent the value patrons place on their sector.

The DIP I proposed takes Dev Protocol a step forward to becoming an ETF provider for Open Assets in which different ETFs are made that require the DEV token to participate.

Color for Dev Community

I'll tell you how Dev Protocol works, but you can also find this information at Docs.

How Dev Protocol's Inflation Works
Inflation is a counter-balance between assets onboarded and DEV staked. If one asset is onboarded then there's .00012 DEV minted per second which is minimal inflation. New Markets under this DIP would have significant inflation ONLY if assets outpace > DEV staked.

What I am asking is how do we set separate native APYs for different markets under your plan? The creation of a new market will increase the issuance but the APY shouldn't be different under the current system from market to market.

My original point still stands where markets should be tied together and provide the same APY. If we have them compete and offer arbitrage opportunities between them, we might be giving value to a market that wouldn't have it otherwise. We might artificially prop up the support of a market through this system. I still believe new markets should be used only to separate the content and not governed under a new system.

I also think we need to discuss how to determine the native APYs.

Let's continue those discussions in #41. I have some ideas too.

If we have them compete and offer arbitrage opportunities between them, we might be giving value to a market that wouldn't have it otherwise. We might artificially prop up the support of a market through this system. I still believe new markets should be used only to separate the content and not governed under a new system.

This is how efficient markets work. Yield is competitive.

I'm conditionally in favor of the idea of changing the prorating ratio by property.
　If there is already some experience (e.g. 10000DEVmint), it may be possible to allow some changes.
　In that case, the authority to change is the author.
　If the user has been staking for a long time, it may be necessary to add some special benefits.

I agree with @defi-er here. Yield should be competitive and different per market. If my APY as a nuclear scientist decreases because someone is making paintings I am not sure how I would feel about that and seems strange. If some other scientist gets a lot of funding and therefor my apy decreases sounds a lot more logical

Thank you for your views! This issue has been moved to #41. Also, I would like to consolidate the same topics into this issue: #48