One point that feels under-discussed given both proposals are being evaluated together:
The Operational Restructuring optimises for runway extension under current conditions. The Tokenomics Revamp removes the only permissionless mechanism for changing those conditions.
These two proposals are internally consistent, but only if we assume the current state of Balancer is close to its steady state.
I don’t believe that’s true.
V3 is not a mature system being optimised. It is an incomplete system whose core advantage, routing across multi-asset, yield-bearing pools, has not yet been discovered. In that context, cutting emissions improves runway if nothing changes. But emissions are also the mechanism by which something changes.
The combination of these proposals does something very specific: it maximizes survival time while minimizing the probability of discovering a new growth regime.
If that tradeoff is intentional, it should be stated clearly. Because the real decision here is not cost vs waste. It is runway extension vs discovery probability. And those are not the same objective.
For context, my full response on the builder and discovery implications is here.
— Sagix