Hi,
pedro here! I’m a huge fan and supporter of Kleros.
It’s fantastic to have proposals that consider the protocol in the long term, so congratulations! And sorry for the delay in feedback 
It would be great to have a breakdown of these numbers and larger reasoning on why this is the most important metric that you guys are measuring for considering the rewards program as “successful”.
According to KIP-37, KIP-46, and KIP-58, >36M PNK have been distributed so far (+ a retroactive airdrop). (I apologize for not sharing the links to the proposals, but my new user status doesn’t allow me to use more than two links per post)
The amount of staked PNK went from approximately 100m to 140m in the program’s first year. That is indeed a good metric. But then we can argue that a huge part of the following year’s increase in staked PNK comes from the incentives themselves being staked by the same people who are receiving this incentive.
I understand that the total PNK supply is 1bn. So 213M would be 21,3% of the total supply? I guess the % you are referring to is the circulating supply. This new incentive program proposal states that it will be funded by PNK minting rather than the cooperative reserves (as in previous incentive programs). This being the case, and if the trend remains the same as in the last two years, the increase in staked PNK will be the same as that of the supply, meaning that the percentage of staked circulating PNK will not change significantly, and the program’s objective will not be met. Why would it be different now?
Also, I am not sure if this kind of incentive continues to be attractive for new jurors to join the program. I understand that the goal of the proposal is “to increase the percentage of tokens staked to secure the protocol”. But I also understand (correct me if I’m wrong please) that decentralization on PNK holdings is desirable and amount of active jurors is a metric I believe should also be considered. Has the number of active jurors increased enough to justify this spending?
On the other hand, there has not been any time in the last 3 years where Kleros didn’t distribute any incentive at all. This means, there is no evidence if the people will stick to the protocol once the incentives are gone. Renewing without this data is a race until you run out of money to incentivize the people to join or stay.
Have you considered incentivizing coherence votes? Kind of extra reward for voting coherently. I’m not sure if this would work, is just an idea. It would also incentivize dispute creation and the program would run for a longer time since the distribution depends on the amount of new disputes and not only for being there.
I am on old guy, and remember a large discussion the last time minting new PNK was proposed. I believe no more PNK has been minted since then, hasn’t it?
How much of the 300M PNK allocated for jurors incentive programs has been spent so far?
And for how much time are you estimating that this program is affordable?
If the program does not work (example 2 scenarios, or staking increases but at a lower rate than 1% monthly), have you planned a specific timeframe to conduct a new analysis of the program’s effectiveness in achieving its goal? And if it is determined that the goal is not being met, will you discontinue the program, or will you use the funds until they are exhausted?
Generally speaking, I am not a supporter of this kind of incentive program because it attracts holders who are not aligned with the protocol’s objectives, but rather with the expectation of profit, and who will abandon it once the incentives end.
Thank you very much and happy new year to everyone!