Doubt about the genesis block - CKB emission model

English
1

I am writing an article about the CKB issuance model. Among other things, I am making graphs and tables of both the emission and the inflation, comparisons with BTC, etc. And I have a doubt. To calculate the inflation data (CKB Explorer) it seems that it uses the 33.6 B from the genesis block, without taking into account the 8.4 B burn after genesis. I understand this since those CKBs impact the secondary emission and its distribution (miners and the treasury will always receive a % of the secondary emission even if all the CKBs are in the DAO).

My doubt arises when calculating other parameters such as the % emitted over time. I am going to put some graphs (they are still drafts subject to changes) where I have used 25.2 as the initial amount:

Comparación emision primaria CKB vs BTC
Comparación emision primaria CKB vs BTC1024×768 49.2 KB

Emision primaria + secundaria VS depositante Nervos DAO (1)
Emision primaria + secundaria VS depositante Nervos DAO (1)1024×768 49.9 KB

Should I also put these graphs with 33.6 B as the initial amount? Should all graphs use 33.6 B as the starting amount? Or is there any exception that I should know about? Maybe if I talk about issuance without specifying that they are in circulation I should use 33.6 B and if I talk about amounts or percentages in circulation use 25.2 B, I don’t know.

Above all, I would like everything to be as clear as possible so as not to create confusion in the future readers of the article.

Thank you.

1 Like
2
  • The total should include the 8.4 B in the genesis when used with the terms “issue” or “mint”,
  • The 8.4 B should be excluded to talk about circulation
  • The minted CKBs in genesis are not a part of primary issuance. The second graph makes more sense to me to use a stacked chart which separates the total into genesis issuance, accumulated primary issuance, and accumulated secondary issuance.
1 Like