Tokenomics Review made by rate3 at 07 Jun 2020

kyber

Naturally, faced by draconian laws, which do not draw a clear line (quite deliberately, I would say) between security and usability tokens and treat them, essentially, the same old-fashion way, corporations universally avoid mentioning "Tokenomics" in their systems' blue-prints. BP is not an exception.

However, as it comes to review a DLT company which doesn't issue its own coins / tokens there's always the question to be asked: are there enough economic incentives left for multiple participants to assure their active participation in its internal micro-economy and to maintain an incorruptible consensus?

After all the main idea behind BP is to establish and to maintain an effective cross-companies-borders exchange of sensitive economic and financial data (without breaching key secrecy and confidentiality internal protocols) in order to achieve measurable gains in productivity, efficiency and quality controls.

The example used in Radish34 demo is, not surprisingly, 'the supply-chain', as it has already became a cliche in our industry. Yes, theoretically speaking, all actors - BP participants - would want to deal with the most effective suppliers of the best components available on the market. However, on practice, such purely economic, long-term benefits are often disregarded in favor of banale bureaucratic considerations of convenient 'partnerships' with already familiar market players.

Additionally, without participants being immediately financially penalized for wrong choices / actions, it's not clear how an optimal consensus might be reached between them on a question, for example, which of newcomers must or must not be included into the suppliers list, etc.

Not to mention, of course, that, very often, the price / delivery time differences between procurement agents are so insignificant that it's much simpler just to make a long-term agreement with one of them for a full range of supplies rather than to spend your time and energy trying to split hairs while 'playing' with BP.

That's, basically, why, when I can not clearly see how BP would motivate its members (and, btw, its investors), I start to questions BP's internal economy long-term stability ("Sustainability" is "c") as well as its ability to produce the real financial value for all involved parties ("Value" is 'c+'), except, possible, some minor gains on data storage / transmission sides ('Transactions' is 'b-').

Usually, after an initial spark of enthusiasm among corps execs, enhanced by external consultants, it leads to quick disillusionment and abandonment ("Engagement" is "c+"). Unless, of course, it wouldn't immediately lead to spiking corps shares prices, as it was famously the case in the fall-winter period of 2017.

Result for "Tokenomics" (Micro-Economy): Sustainability (project's economy long-term stability) - Value (coins / tokens long-term value) - Engagement (potential number of coin / tokens users) - Transactions (cost and ease of transactions): c/c+/c+/b-