
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


A month ago, the Cronos blockchain voted to increase the supply of tokens in their ecosystem from 27B to 70B (!!!).
This issuance was positioned as a reversal of the largest token burning program ever run in crypto, where 70% of the CRO token supply was burned in 2021. The tokens, Cronos Labs said, were needed to support issuing an ETF, and to support their crypto x AI roadmap. We reasonably have no word in English for something getting reverse-burnt, so call it an “unburning”.
You’d be excused if you were a CRO tokenholder and a 2.5x increase in supply made you balk. Especially by resurrecting tokens from the dead.
As voting went forward, this particular piece of crypto-necromancy risked not reaching quorum.
That is, until the biggest player in the ecosystem stepped in in favour - Cronos Labs themselves.
If one entity owns 50%+ of the token supply, is governance a facade? One token, one vote. But does it have to be that way?
By NYCPA month ago, the Cronos blockchain voted to increase the supply of tokens in their ecosystem from 27B to 70B (!!!).
This issuance was positioned as a reversal of the largest token burning program ever run in crypto, where 70% of the CRO token supply was burned in 2021. The tokens, Cronos Labs said, were needed to support issuing an ETF, and to support their crypto x AI roadmap. We reasonably have no word in English for something getting reverse-burnt, so call it an “unburning”.
You’d be excused if you were a CRO tokenholder and a 2.5x increase in supply made you balk. Especially by resurrecting tokens from the dead.
As voting went forward, this particular piece of crypto-necromancy risked not reaching quorum.
That is, until the biggest player in the ecosystem stepped in in favour - Cronos Labs themselves.
If one entity owns 50%+ of the token supply, is governance a facade? One token, one vote. But does it have to be that way?