The roadmap said we go for Bitcoin Staking, so here we go!
The emission/staking coupling in §3.2 is the right framing. I ran the launch parameters (3,000 BTC @ 3% target, 1,000 STX/block, ~500M STX stacked, 5% pairing ratio) against the current STX/BTC rate and want to raise two related points.
1. The emission rate should track the STX/BTC price, not be fixed.
The reward pool that funds yield is miner BTC, which tracks the market value of the STX coinbase — so coverage is a direct function of sats/STX. The fixed 1,000 STX/block is effectively calibrated to a single price point. At the current ~282 sats/STX, 1,000/block produces roughly 1.65x coverage on the 3,000 BTC book — inside the healthy band but below the 2.0x target, and it slips toward the caution band (~1.3x) once you assume a realistic miner margin (~20%).
The problem is what happens when the price moves. With a fixed rate, the only stabilization lever in caution/stressed bands is to choke capacity (halt new bonds) — which throttles exactly the BTC inflow the mechanism exists to attract. That’s the reflexivity risk in §8.2, and a fixed rate leans into it. A coverage-targeting emission (flex issuance to hold ~2x, within a bounded band) would instead use emission as a shock absorber, and — importantly — would let growing fees crowd out issuance over time, automatically executing the fee-driven transition §3.2.3.3 describes and lowering terminal inflation.
I recognize algorithmic yield/capacity is explicitly PoX-6 scope; my ask for PoX-5 is narrower: treat 1,000 as a soft anchor subject to future coverage-driven adjustment rather than a permanent floor, and make sure the contract exposes the coverage/fee data PoX-6 would need to parameterize this.
2. What STX-only stackers (Tranche 2) can actually expect is highly price-dependent.
Because Tranche 2 is the residual (85% of pool above the 90 BTC Tranche 1 obligation), its yield is very convex in price. Holding 1,000 STX/block and ~500M STX stacked:
| sats/STX | Coverage @ 1,000/blk | Excess → Tranche 2 (BTC/yr) | STX-only BTC APY |
|---|---|---|---|
| 150 | 0.88x | 0 (reserve tapped) | 0% |
| 171 | 1.00x | 0 | 0% |
| 200 | 1.17x | ~13 | ~1.5% |
| 250 | 1.46x | ~35 | ~3.2% |
| 282 (current) | 1.65x | ~50 | ~3.9% |
| 350 | 2.04x | ~80 | ~5.0% |
| 500 | 2.92x | ~147 | ~6.3% |
Two things stand out with current parameters. First, there’s a zero-yield cliff at ~171 sats/STX — below it, emission can’t even fill Tranche 1, so STX-only stakers get nothing and the reserve drains. We’re only ~40% above that cliff today; a one-third STX drawdown wipes out second-layer yield entirely. Second, this is for miners mining at the edge, a realistic miner margin would lower the yield.
Both points argue the same thing: tying emission to coverage would stabilize the STX-only experience and keep the system off that cliff through a downturn, rather than concentrating the volatility on Tranche 2.
Let’s plan for dynamic emission for PoX-6!
More points:
- The sell pressure analysis does not reflect sales from investors of SIP-031. Please add that as well. My understanding is that there are around 5m STX unlocking each month.
- I agree with @axopoa that boosters should come from the Endowment, not from consensus.