[AEP-76] Burn-Mint Equilibrium: Revitalizing AKT Demand with Economic Impact Analysis. Community Input Needed.

[gosuri]

Hey Akashians!

I'm excited to share AEP-76: Burn-Mint Equilibrium on Akash, a comprehensive proposal that addresses one of our biggest challenges: maintaining stable USD payments while revitalizing demand for AKT.

The Problem We're Solving: While AEP-23's stablecoin integration boosted revenue growth, it inadvertently reduced AKT demand. We need to restore AKT's foundational role while keeping the stable payment experience users love.

The Solution: BME introduces ACT (Akash Compute Token) - a non-transferable, USD-pegged compute credit that's minted by burning AKT. This creates:

✓ Stable USD experience for tenants
✓ Structural AKT demand through burn mechanics
✓ Deflationary potential when AKT appreciates
✓ No hidden taxes or take-rates

Key Innovation: Every dollar spent on compute drives immediate AKT market buys, while outstanding ACT acts as an escrowed AKT sink, reducing circulating supply.

Economic Impact Analysis

Let's dive into the economic implications of this Burn-Mint Equilibrium:

Demand Drivers:

1. Immediate Market Pressure: Every dollar spent triggers AKT market buys
2. Supply Sink: Outstanding ACT removes AKT from circulation until spent
3. Price Appreciation Bonus: AKT price increases between top-up and payout create net burns

Real-World Scenario:

If monthly compute spending is $10M:

• Immediate market buy of ~8.77M AKT (at current $1.14 price)
• If average settlement price is $1.25 → net monthly burn of ~0.77M AKT
• Plus the "time-in-vault" float reduction during the month

Comparison to Current State:

• AEP-23: Stable payments but reduced AKT demand
• BME: Stable payments with increased AKT demand and deflationary potential

Risk Mitigation:

• Circuit breakers prevent system stress (CR 0.95 warn, 0.90 halt)
• Governance-seeded vault buffer for volatility
• No take-rates on providers (unlike AEP-23)

The Akash community's input is crucial for AEP-76's success. I'd love to hear your perspectives:

For Tenants:

• Does the stable USD experience with ACT sound appealing?
• Any concerns about the credit card → AKT buy → ACT mint flow?
• Would you prefer different auto-top-up settings?

For Providers:

• How do you feel about receiving AKT instead of USDC?
• Should we include an auto-stake percentage option for payouts?
• Any concerns about settlement timing (per-block vs 5-minute epochs)?

For Stakers:

• Do you see the deflationary mechanics as sufficient AKT demand?
• What circuit breaker thresholds make sense to you?
• Should we seed the vault with a larger initial buffer?

For Developers:

• Any technical concerns about the oracle system (Osmosis TWAP + external feeds)?
• Thoughts on the module architecture (x/bme, x/act, x/oracle)?
• Suggestions for additional safety mechanisms?

For Governance:

• What parameters should be governance-controlled vs. fixed?
• How should we handle emergency situations?
• Timeline preferences for implementation?

Key Questions for Discussion:

1. Do you think the deflationary mechanics will be sufficient to support AKT price?
2. How do you see this affecting provider economics?
3. Should we consider different circuit breaker thresholds?
4. What's your preferred timeline for this migration?

The full technical specification is detailed in the AEP, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on this approach. Do you see this as the right direction for Akash's tokenomics?

Please share your thoughts, concerns, and suggestions. This proposal is designed to benefit the entire Akash ecosystem, so your input is invaluable!

[BarakahGrid]

Thanks for sharing this @gosuri 🙏

From a provider’s perspective, the removal of take-rates and the shift to ACT credits looks like a strong improvement. It aligns provider incentives directly with AKT demand while keeping the tenant side stable in USD.

One question I’m considering as we prepare a pilot deployment: how will heterogeneous deployments (different GPU types, not just A100s) be reflected in lease economics under AEP-76? For example, would smaller cards (T4, A4000, etc.) create the same AKT burn pressure per dollar spent, or are there nuances in how demand flows back into the token model?

Either way, this seems like a major step toward making provider economics more sustainable. Looking forward to the implementation details and feedback from the community.

[gosuri]

Thanks for the feedback!

AEP-76 does not specifically address heterogeneous GPU deployments but the demand for them is gaining ground as Decentralized Training is becoming a reality. We recently reported about a successful test for heterogeneous GPU training on Akash.

Hope this helps.

[NightfuryMD]

Hi @gosuri
Thank you for putting so much effort into the AEP-76 proposal and for asking the community for their thoughts. As a staker, I'm really excited about how it could create a deflationary dynamic and increase the long-term value of AKT.

The proposal says that "a portion of the hosting fees collected during settlement is distributed to AKT stakers." This is a very important part of the puzzle for stakers because it directly replaces the current take fee model. To fully understand how this proposal will affect things, it would be very helpful to know more about how this new mechanism works. While token appreciation is an obvious primary outcome that everyone appreciates, an important concern for stakers is making sure they will make adequate staking returns.

When the time is right, it would be helpful to know/discuss more about:
Percentage: How much of the hosting fees will be given to stakers?
Mechanism: What will the technical details of this distribution be? How do the fees from settlements get to the stakers? How often will these distributions happen?

These details would make an already strong proposal even stronger and would answer a big question for the staking community. Thanks again for all the hard work you put into this important project and for talking to the community about it. I can't wait to hear more.

Cheers!

[tonyrosa777-ops]

First off, I want to acknowledge the elegance of the ACT mechanism and the burn-mint equilibrium design. It’s clear this proposal represents a serious step toward aligning long-term demand for decentralized compute with sustainable tokenomics.

That said, I’d like to surface a few points for consideration—particularly from the lens of AI agent UX, token velocity modeling, and validator alignment:
1. Agent UX Implications
In a world where AI agents are self-provisioning compute, the ability to transact in ACT (vs. volatile AKT) is a major simplification. However, I’d encourage the team to explore whether agent-facing APIs (or SDKs) are planned to facilitate intelligent reminting behavior—e.g., so agents can estimate vault capacity, predict ACT replenishment, and self-regulate spend. This could be key to adoption in AI-native workflows, especially as vector DBs and inference workloads become modular and autonomous.
2. Token Flow + Deflation Modeling
In my own simulations using live Akash deployment metrics, I modeled various ACT issuance scenarios and found that under even moderate growth (e.g., 3–5x current monthly GPU job flow), the burn pressure on AKT becomes meaningfully deflationary within ~18 months. Would love to know if the core team has internal velocity projections to cross-validate or expand on this. Happy to share modeled curves if helpful.
3. Validator Economic Incentives
Since validators aren’t taking a “cut” of ACT per se (due to no take-rate), how do we ensure long-term incentive alignment? Is the expectation that stakers simply benefit from AKT price appreciation, or will validator commissions evolve in tandem with ACT flows? It might be worth exploring dynamic commission models that are linked to burned volume or vault utilization rates.
4. Governance Surface Area
With ACT as a non-transferable credit minted by burning a volatile asset, I wonder if governance will eventually need circuit-breakers for abuse (e.g., flash mint–remint cycles) or rules around agent-classification. How much of that is planned to be onchain vs. social-layer adjudicated?

Overall, I see AEP-76 as foundational for positioning Akash as a core Layer-0 primitive in decentralized AI infrastructure. Excited to see how this unfolds, and open to contributing deeper research if useful.

— Anthony Rosa
Founder, Optimus Business Solutions
Researcher | AI Agent Architect | Akash Ecosystem Contributor