[Discussion] ShimmerEVM: Governance, Tokenomics and Scaling

As community validator I propose thetangle.org instead of RockX.
Thetangle.org is here since 2017 and is a real 100% community project. I’m surprised it was not initially proposed.
On the other hand the community didn’t hear about RockX before it was mentioned here.


Hiveroad is honored to be part of the proposed validators! As long-time members of the community and one of the original Touchpoint program projects, we are happy to be of service. Providing validator nodes as a service is at the core of our offering.

1 Like

Validators - I really like the PoA concept. So many corporations in our economy can act nefariously, and sometimes do; however, when actions are transparent, and more than 2/3rds must unite in a nefarious way, the odds are immeasurably low to near zero this would occur. Saying that, I don’t think it should be limited to 4 per group only. As stated previous, Tangle.Org would be a great addition. If the community supports a community validator (ie: Tangle.Org) and we can find consensus, why not add them to that group? Of course, that proposed validator must be very well known, experienced at running nodes, have a public identity, and the trust from the community.

Note: How does this affect TangleSea as they are not publicly known?

Transaction Fees! - I 100% vote to fund and build a Shimmer Treasury governed by the community. I am not a proponent of "minting" new tokens out of thin air such as with the supply increase proposal. Yet I agree, that we need a Treasury to fund innovation and Dapps. Yet funding a Treasury through transaction fees, and additionally possibly part of the 8% inflation, a Treasury can be formed. Further, a proposal can then be submitted at that time to a) Burn a percentage or all of the tokens, b) fund projects, c) give rebates, or d) any other of multitude of choices.

The point is, with those tokens in a Treasury controlled by the community, the community can then choose what happens to them. As well, the community has the freedom to use those tokens while considering the current network and global crypto economic climate at that time in mind. Meaning, rather than stating to Burn the transaction fees, have that in the protocol, it is fairly fixed unless a forked is completed. So if things change within the crypto economy, or with the Shimmer network, the freedom to change isn’t as easy if a Treasury is built. The reality is, "today" we probably don’t know what the best use for those transaction fees are in three years from now. So let’s build a framework that allows us easily to adjust to the needed use in the future.

Community Involvement - I love these discussions and fully agree that we need leadership and guidance from the IF. This proposal is a great example coming from Dom. However, the Shimmer Network is supposed to be for the community and eventually run by the community. Of course, there must be a transition, I just hope that transition starts early. Such that, after these proposals are discussed, they get voted on by the community.

Indeed, it is hard and sometimes time consuming to break down these decisions into variables that can be voted on, yet I have the full faith that we as a community can make this happen.

1 Like

Hola soy nuevo acá pero con iota desde hace cuatro años. Creo que una para una mayor adopción de iota y su tecnología, sería el crear un fondo de ayuda a nuevos emprendedores que necesitan financiamiento para sus proyectos.
Pero debiese ser para creadores, inventores en rebotica, vacunas, gestión de negocios. en definitiva creadores e inventores que no encuentran en los bancos o instituciones gubernamentales fe en sus proyectos, por diferentes motivos…
Una especie de Silicon Valley en la red IOTA…

1 Like

After some more thinking about this and discussions with the team at the Foundation and some community members, I wanted to circle back here with what I would define as a more final proposal for the ShimmerEVM.


  • 12 validators
  • With the upcoming Shimmer Beta, we would begin deploying a testnet chain which will be validated by the ShimmerEVM validators. Through this test we will get more insights into reliability of the chosen validators and the performance of the overall setup. Based on these insights, we will then make a final decision on who the validators of the ShimmerEVM should be.
  • For any project in the ecosystem that thinks that you’re capable of participating as a ShimmerEVM validator, please reach out to me on Discord!

Tokenomics & Incentives:

  • 60% of fees in the ShimmerEVM are burned. This will effectively reduce the
  • 40% of the fees are distributed to the 30 most active dApps in the Shimmer ecosystem
  • Active dApps are defined by those who generate the most in fees (objective metric which is difficult / expensive to cheat).
  • Validators of the ShimmerEVM receive no fees. This decision can be revised at a later point to give a portion of the fees as an incentive to validators.

What do you all think?


Is this 40% fee allocation for active projects a new idea or it was already discussed somewhere?

In my opinion it disincentivizes designing the dApps in a right way. IOTA was always about scalability and multi-chain. We’ll probably be a minority in this opinion since more or less all projects are developing their contracts as they would for Ethereum L1 - a single non scalable chain. What we are doing and what I believe ultimately everyone will do is design their dApps as independent sharded rollups. This approach is technically more complicated since now you have to do many things not just write a few smart contracts and a nice UI, but also build distributed systems to support the multi-chain rollup architecture. So projects that took the scalable approach should now reconsider and go back to a non scalable approach since the non scalable approach is getting incentivized? Plus if you ignore the single or multi-chain which is clear that multi-chain is not favored with this approach, the proposed incentive also incentivizes building non optimized dApps that consume more gas fees which should never be the case regardless of single or multi-chain design.

Why not put those 40% in the Shimmer Community Treasury? Those 30 projects would still get funded though that and other projects can also get funded that way while incentivizing better dApp design decisions.


Why should Validators not get a persentage of the Fee?

Usually it costs to provide the infrastructure. Providing infrastructure to others imo should not be free. Otherwise this is not sustainable for Validators.

0,5% of the Fees could go to each Validator. In total that would be 6%. From the then remaining 34%, 14% go to the most active dApps and 20% to a Shimmer Treasury.

1 Like

Hi Dom, I think this proposal can be improved. As Luka well explained, some of us are building more complex systems which we believe are more scalable and efficient. I think that portion of fees should be sent to the Treasury, and be allocated to projects in the way the community decide. I’m sure most of those 30 dapps will apply for funding/grants/investments in there anyway.


So what was the outcome of this discussion?
What can we expect for the upcoming Shimmer-VM launch?

1 Like

Three workdays without a response…
Are you still active on this forum @dom @Phylo ?

Hello anyone still here? I think with the ISC Testnet launch drawing closer it would be good to revive this discussion unless you don’t want the community to have a say in this
@Phylo @dom @antonio.nardella

Hey - thanks for the interrest, but there will be no community validators in the upcoming EVM Testnet, so currently, this topic is not on our agenda.


i just joined today and will learn this

1 Like

hello friend Phylo how r u ? i joined today lolss will learn

1 Like

I don’t think that the fee will be sufficient to really fund the ambitions of the Treasury that Kappy has proposed btw.

How about using the fees to reward those who will help making the network secured? Like validators or stakers? If security is a concern, I think the fees should be used to that end.

1 Like

Reviving this topic once again since the ShimmerEVM launch is coming closer.

Who will be in the validator committee of the ShimmerEVM?

Since there is currently only code for gas-fee distribution between the chain governor (IF) and the validators (handpicked by IF) i wanted to ask what percentages were chosen.

At the start of the network, IF will run all validators.
After the initial launch Phase, trusted ecosystem teams committed to and invested in the Shimmer EVM will be added to the validator set after they have shown to be reliable operators with proper DevOps and security practices implemented.

With this process, the IF will gradually hand over control of the validator set to the community/ecosystem.

The (especially in the beginning) negligible fees will only be collected by the chain governor. Later, exact usage and distribution towards validators (or other things that make sense) will be discussed and agreed on amongst the validator set.