Win-Win-Win strategy for FreeTON Blockchain

Dear all active part of the community and the winners of the Validator contest!

Congratulations on completing the Main Ludi game!

I want to share with you a very important idea and data. Please read it carefully!

We went deep into the data on staking, conducted a very large study, and tested many models.

We want to introduce you to the conclusions of this work and raise this issue for discussion before it is too late!

When all the subsidized stakes are in the mainet, the profit from mining will be at a very low level!

This is normal for blockchains that have been on the market for several years and have a lot of trust from investors and the community. But for starting projects, such profitability is too low and does not motivate you to transfer your crypto savings to the freeton blockchain.

At the moment the key driver for buying tokens from the market is staking! And most likely will remain so for the next many months.

But at the moment, the conditions are not very profitable and those who want to enter the freeton stake market will have to wait 1.5 years until the main amount of subsidized stake is" out of the game".

If we build the model in such a way that the % of earnings from stacking is higher. This encourages validators, DePools participants, and third-party investors to buy large volumes of tokens from the market. And current validators&contest winners will be motivated do not immediately sell their tokens to the market.

In this regard, I suggest:

1. Reduce the Subsidy Stake by 2-3 times

  • This will significantly increase the % income for new participants entering the staking. This in turn will significantly keep and increase the demand for tokens!

2. Increase Direct Reward payments

  • This is necessary in order for the 300 validators who won Master Ludi to keep their prizes in the same amount and get better returns in the future.

The consequence of such changes:

1 - the current 300 validators will get the same number of tokens and a higher return in the future!

2 - the attractiveness of staking in FreeTON will grow at TIMES! And this will attract third-party professional players and their resources to our project.

3 - with increased demand for tokens, their price will growing vastly.


I consider the Subsidy/Direct Reward model change is a win-win and necessary step!

In analytics, we compare 3 Models:

Base Model:

Subsidy Stake - 1st place - 1500k | 300th place - 750k

Direct Reward - 1st place - 120k | 300th place - 60k

Proposed Model:

Subsidy Stake - 1st place - 750k | 300th place - 375k

Direct Reward - 1st place - 200k | 300th place - 100k

Potential Model:

Subsidy Stake - 1st place - 375k | 300th place - 162,5k

Direct Reward - 1st place - 250k | 300th place - 125k

Below I attach few screenshots of our Analytics.
Soon we will also show how this affects for new participants who entering in staking and other useful metrics and visualizations. we need to finish them in the “for everyone an understandable view”

Later we will be able to give access for a deeper study to interested users.


Very interesting analysis. Thank you for that! I think we should get more feedback from the community before consider any retrospective change of rewards structure.


Good job, I think the community should really be focused on the long term, so that in many years the system will be up-to-date and freeton works as it should.


can you please provide this model not only for 2 years, but for 5+ years as well.


Thanks for interesting topic. Could you please provide the calculations (maybe Google Spreadsheets)? Also it would be great to share the initial economic model for comparison from Tonlabs.
What I see from start - your model doesn’t take into account the unfreeze of rewards and subsidized amount returns.

I suppose we need to have these charts: per month in-flow of direct rewards (total from contests and validators rewards), per month total of staking amount (it will only grow, not decrease as per your chart). So we can make prognosis of circulated amounts, etc.


Sure. Only in this case some difficulties arise. We do not know how the validators will behave with their tokens, we do not know how many new players will come to staking. we can only make hypotheses.

1 Like

in analytics above has a “Base Model” this is exactly the model that is valid now from tonlabs
“Proposed” and “Potential” are the alternatives that we propose.

first screen - this is a summary of the 3 models, provided that the validators “take out of the game” their rewards and mining profit.

the second screen - is also 3 models, but on provided that they accumulate all profit and rewards.

1 Like

Please give me some time. Soon, I will publish a more detailed version of the dashboard.
Analytics is end-to-end and we will be able to see data from any side and build different hypotheses.

Furthermore, when we will finish the dashboard, and when enough participants join the discussion.
We can make a “zoom” call and show everything to the community in real time.


Very good analysis. A lot of efforts have been invested in this great job, We should send it to the Governance and community for discussion. Thank you, Platon!


The very basic assumptions of the models are incorrect. We don’t have one game with 300 winners ranged from max to min rewards. We have 4 games with 75 winners in each ranged from max to min rewards. And distribution of rewards is not proportional to place, but proportional to the score which gives a completely different distribution of rewards.


Super Woow work!!! :rocket: :rocket: :rocket: :rocket: :rocket:

1 Like

Hi to all! As promised, I publish access to the dashboard. Where everyone can see the data, both general by model, and for each individual validator.

Each selected validator can be viewed in two sections:
«No savings» - a condition where the validator withdraws all reward and mining income.
«Savings» - the validator saves all reward and mining income.

The dashboard is Interactive:

If you have any additional questions, I will be happy to answer.

With regards to what @szaitseff noted. We clarified this issue with him in pm. Indeed, our Base model does not comply with the modified Master Ludi rules. According to the new rules of the game, tokens will not be distributed evenly from 1500k for the 1st place and 750k for the last one, but in accordance with the ratings. And it turns out that the rewards close to the maximum subsidized stake will be more than we expected. But already now we can definitely say that the situation will look even more depressing, since subsidized stake will be even higher than in the calculations! This essentially nullifies the staking market and depool program for the next 1.5 years.

With the current model, in the next 1.5 years the staking market and depool program will simply be dead. No one will pour large sums into FreeTON to earn less than in other blockchains and compete with the incredibly bloated subsidized stakes.

I suggest fixing it before it’s will be too late.

Validators and active part of the community, please join the discussion


Thank you for the presentational analytics, it really shows that the token distribution can be optimized.
I also fully agree that the originally proposed 1mln subsidy will raise the entry threshold for new members too much, and this may be critical for the project at an early stage. Scheduled growth of a steak looks more harmonious during project development. And the lower it is at the start - the better. New members and professional validators can connect easilly after the project is gaining in popularity.
It is also quite reasonable to reward the initial validators, who have passed the Magister Ludi Game contest, and let them stay to validate the network after the subsidy expires with their own stakes.
Because these people will play a key role in the first year, and probably further, in maintaining the security and performance of the network.


good job, thanks. we keep wanting till you correct it regard to what szaitseff said.

We will be able to do this when the KYC stage is passed. And we will know exactly what the final size of the awards is.
But these corrections will not change the bigger picture. In the current model the subsidized stack will get even bigger. And this will only add relevance to changes in the base model.

Хотел бы обратить ваше внимание на вашу модель и не точность расчетов, а именно на то, что в Магистр люди было 4 отдельных независимых друг от друга игры и награды за эти игры тоже будут независимы друг от друга. С каждой игры в победители выходят 75 игроков, а распределение наград идет следующим образом: 4 первых места по 1 500 000 - 120 000, 4 вторых места по 1 497 492 - 119 799 и т.д. до 75 места, которых тоже 4 по 750 000 - 60 000. Думаю расчеты буду иными.

Александр, есть ощущение, что вы не прочли переписку выше.

Да Платон, извиняюсь, просто изучал вашу модель и обнаружил ошибку, до того как обратил внимание на комментарии выше. В любом случае, модель построена не корректно и сделать какие то конкретные выводы по ней нельзя, общий посыл в целом понятен, но вы не можете со стопроцентностью сказать, как поведет себя рынок, придут новые игроки или нет зависит не только от размера наград, но и от качества продукта, есть не мало БЧ-пустышек, где высокие награды и низкая ликвидность, что делает такой продукт не востребованным. Как показывает практика опять же сторонних БЧ, залить рынок токенами не к чему хорошему привести не может, но нас и так сильно и не балуют наградами, даже при таких субсидиях, кто по умнее не будет продавать свои реворды, до листинга на топовых биржах, таким образом в ближайшее время не стоит ждать новых игроков, а с уменьшение субсидий, мы их так же не дождемся, да еще и потеряем в наградах. Что касаемо спроса на токены и стейкинг, тут тоже все абстрактно, токены раздают на конкурсах, с запуском 300 валидаторов начнут раздавать токены в массы, кто то будет стейковать, кто то продавать, так или иначе в большей массе своей, все токены пойдут в стейкинг, в том числе и к этим 300-м. Ну а цену в первую очередь определяет качество продукта. Лично мне в угадайки играть не интересно, меня интересует полная субсидия согласно условий конкурса, у меня есть партнеры согласные участвовать своими деньгами с учетом сегодняшних реалий.

Вообще не понятно, почему большинство валидаторов согласны, что бы им порезали субсидии исходя из теоретических доводов и не корректной аналитики, в большинстве своем сделанной на предположениях и догадках. Это еще можно было обсуждать, если организаторы эти субсидии по окончанию срока их действия, полностью или частично оставляли за валидаторами, в противном случае, такой расклад не в их пользу. Думайте головой товарищи валидаторы и не видитесь на домыслы псевдоаналитиков.

Не совсем понимаю, к чему столь не корректные выражения в мой адрес? “псевдоаналитиком” меня еще никто не называл:)

Никаких предположений и догадок в аналитике выше нет. Там исключительно сухие цифры и расчеты.

С чего вы решили, что уменьшение субсидированного стека влечет за собой потери в наградах?
В предложенных моделях совокупный профит для валидаторов БОЛЬШЕ чем в текущей модели!

Извините, но тут я совсем не понимаю ход ваших мыслей.

Я предлагаю порезать субсидированный стек, который так или иначе не принадлежит валидаторам. И взамен увеличить прямые вознаграждения, чтоб в совокупном доходе валидаторы получили больше!
Но при этом более низкие ставки субсидированного стека, позволят войти в этот рынок дипулам и сторонним инвесторам. Так как будет в два раза ниже порог входа, а % чистого профита от объема вложенных токенов будет в два раза выше. Что в свою очередь хорошо отразится на интересе к вложениям в токены freeton, следовательно и на их стоимости. И в целом на децентрализации как таковой.

Александр, есть ощущение, что и со второго раза вы не вникли в суть предложения, а просмотрели его по диагонали.