Some questions/comments on the proposal. Sorry if it is a bit long-winded.
First, some clarification - is point 2 supposed to be "The 90-day moving average growth rate of the eligible on-chain carbon supply over the 90-day moving average growth rate of KLIMA supply"?
Second, how exactly is AKR dependent on the two quantities being calculated? Or, stated differently, what are you optimizing AKR for? The idea that "optimal KLIMA supply expansion should be in line with the growth of the on-chain carbon offset market" is too vague. Perhaps a simplified (ignoring time effect) explanation could offer some insight and motivation - e.g. if the carbon supply available is at a fixed amount X, how much supply of KLIMA should there be and why?
Third, the explanation in the last paragraph "Call the reward rate..." is contradictory as now it appears only the 90-day MA are used. But more importantly, since the KLIMA supply is fixed at any given point in time, the adjustment made to the protocol to target G is effectively aiming for the "target runway". But "target runway" has nothing to do with the goals of the project. Rather, I would expect it to be treated as a sort of lower bound of the available optimization space to avoid "bank run" type scenarios.
The animations are slick, but they cycle too fast. I would suggest adding 15-20 seconds at the end before they repeat.
My major concern is that the proposed KIP is focused on matching the rate of emissions with the rate of supply. First of all, this does not make any sense because not all carbon credits are created equal. Second, do we know if the current supply of tokens that have been minted (ie. not rate) is in any sense "good"? Third, what is the definition of "good"?
Have some MC or other types of simulations been done to project what these changes are likely to do under reasonable assumed conditions (informed by past data or otherwise logical assumptions)? It would be great to see this level of detail to have a clearer understanding.
KLIMA is a great idea, it has the potential to be a weapon of mass de...carbonization 🙂 But I worry that there is more guesswork than careful analysis going on at this stage of the project. For instance, the "MCAP is everything" storyline seems a bit simplistic. Supply is important because that is the vacuum, but it also has to be balanced somehow. Price is also important because without good price behavior the project will not continue to attract new investors, which can give the project both momentum on the investor side and confidence of its long-term viability on the "use-case" side. MCAP hides these details as it obfuscates the effect of these two properties and how they might be related to inputs.
Perhaps the growth of supply should be related to the price of credits coming on-chain rather than the quantity of them? And then mint to target a (linearly?) increasing price of tokens or some such that gamifies the benefit of offsetting now versus waiting and rolling the dice. Completely agree that we need to drop AKR by a lot and increase runway, but that is survival instinct, not long-term strategy. Drop the AKR with a simple vote if we must, but don't introduce a long-term complex strategy until it has been beat on, discussed and refined over and over again by the best brains in the project.