Example Breakdown

As an example we assume that .8% tokens are circulating for the purposes of streaming, we assume the power consumption of an average project in a particular region is €0.02, we estimate a relative high demand in a region where the node is streaming so we set the demand multiplier at 8, and the amount of connections this particular beacon can stream we set as 2, the graphical requirements are slightly more demanding than average (+10%). We also take into consideration a future scenario where streaming minutes have pushed the $YOM price to $2.8.

Cost-based rewards: $ 0.02 * 8 = $ 0.16 -> 0.06 $YOM /u/hr

Market-based rewards: 0.12 $YOM /u/hr

Normalized rewards : (0.1 * 0.06 + 0.8 * 0.11) / 0.9 = 0.11 $YOM /u/hr

Total rewards (2 users at + 10% difficulty): 0.11 * 2 * 1.1 = 0.24 $YOM/hr:

Stakeholder	$YOM rewards	Fiat
Studio/ Agency	0.24 * 5% = ~ 0.01 $YOM	€ 0.03
YOM	0.24 * 30% = ~ 0.07 $YOM	€ 0.20
YOM DAO	0.24 * 5% = ~ 0.01 $YOM	€ 0.03
Node	0.24 * 60% = 0.15 $YOM	€ 0.40

Market efficiency

As you may have noticed, there is a gap between the cost-based and the circulation based approach. This situation may represent an inefficient market where speculative forces outperform the actual value of the demand (which in this example could have been roughly $1.37 instead of $2,80). To create market efficiency, we can close the gap via liquidity providers.

For this reason, YOM will create incentives (liquidity pools) to attract additional liquidity to reinforce the demand/supply of project streaming and reward traders and investors to create market efficiency. The result is a price that converges to a stable state of growth that represents the market for the ecosystem.

The liquidity pool allows users to collect rewards on their own terms based on the amount liquidity they provide to the market. Simply put, the more liquidity you provide to enable market efficiency, the more rewards you will receive (difference between speculative and actual/real value). It is up to the community to invent better mechanisms than the cost-based approach, as is proposed in this article.