Osmosis turned off the "tap," marking a rewriting of rules personally signed through on-chain governance: after proposal 1053 passed with approximately 91.1% approval, the inflation model that once minted about 91,324 OSMO daily was pressed to a stop, with new minting directly set to 0 at the end of the latest epoch. From that moment on, stakers and validators no longer received subsidies from minting but were tied to the income distribution of the protocol itself—officially clarified that subsequent staking rewards would come from the protocol's revenue. With each OSMO destroyed, the total supply decreased, ushering the network into a new phase of "no inflation + income-driven + destruction reducing supply." This acts as a comprehensive revision of the contract terms for past stakers: on one hand, the long-criticized continuous minting and selling pressure have been halted at the governance level, providing system-based safeguards for the supply side's sustainability; on the other hand, the revenue sources and distribution mechanisms currently lack public data, making it difficult to quantify how staking yields will be repriced and whether validator income can cover operational costs in the short term, throwing both adjustment risks and growth dividends onto all nodes participating in security and liquidity.
The Community Turns Off the Inflation Switch with a Proposal
Proposal 1053 was not a "eureka moment" from a single developer, but rather a formal document submitted by the Osmosis project team and the community within the on-chain governance framework to rewrite the rules: whether to extract OSMO from the inflation model and stop the daily automatic minting of new coins. Once the proposal was placed on the governance page, validators and stakers expressed their opinions using their voting rights as usual, ultimately reaching around 91.1% approval rate, pushing the document from the discussion board to a binding protocol-level decision. For a network accustomed to using "mint more coins" to buy security and liquidity, this outcome means that terminating inflation is no longer just a forum sentiment but a hard rule coded into the system.
After the proposal passed, the execution path was clarified to a time granularity: before the end of inflation, the system would still mint about 91,324 OSMO daily according to the old rules, for multiple purposes such as staking incentives; once the latest epoch settled, the new rules took over, and the new minting parameter at the system level was directly set to 0. The daily issuance rhythm that had been ongoing was cut off, with new supply pressure cleared at the protocol level, and Osmosis's "monetary policy" shifted from inflation to zero issuance, requiring the future supply curve of the entire chain and participants’ yield expectations to be rewritten by the market and community after this juncture.
Staking Yields Rewritten: From Issuance Subsidies to Protocol Dividends
Prior to proposal 1053, the returns received by stakers and validators essentially came from "eating from the printing machine." Approximately 91,324 OSMO were minted daily (according to a single source), with a portion directly directed towards staking incentives, forming a typical inflation incentive model: the system continuously diluted the share of all token holders to exchange for nominal returns for current stakers. As long as the minting tempo was running, stakers saw ever-refreshing reward numbers, while the real cost got diluted across a continuously expanding total supply. For validators, this was a clear and predictable income line; for non-staking token holders, it was a default acceptance of being "taxed" by inflation.
The moment inflation was adjusted to 0, this income line was uprooted. The officials have made it clear that future staking rewards will no longer come from newly minted tokens but will instead be supported by protocol revenue, which means the "water level" of staking returns is now closely bound to the protocol’s actual cash flow generation. After minting behavior hits 0, each OSMO destroyed directly compresses the total supply; the supply side no longer expands and may even contract. Stakers would no longer receive numbers exchanged for diluting others but would be closer to the logic of "sharing the protocol’s real income." For long-term value, this design of "no inflation + destruction reducing supply" theoretically realigns the interests of token holders and stakers: those willing to continue staking need to weigh lockup, yield, and security in a more limited supply pool; those hesitating should reassess whether they still want to stake their chips in consensus without inflation subsidies. The real question on the table is: in a world without inflation subsidies, can this new yield structure support the security and liquidity of Osmosis?
Zero Supply Increase: How On-Chain Rules Affect Compliance Determination
When the Osmosis community passed proposal 1053 and brought the daily minting of approximately 91,324 OSMO to 0, announcing that staking rewards would shift to come from protocol revenue, it was not only rewriting an economic model but also submitting a new "instruction manual" to regulators. Under the inflation model, staking returns economically resembled an inflation subsidy—derived from continuous minting and logically closer to the system's internal "rewards" for contributing to security and liquidity. However, when inflation hits zero and rewards primarily rely on actual revenue generated by using the protocol, this portion of staking return resembles a redistribution of the protocol's real business cash flow. For certain regulatory frameworks, these two structures could be placed in completely different drawers: the former might be seen as a system-layer incentive arrangement, while the latter is easier to understand as a share of protocol income. This difference directly influences how tokens are defined under local laws and how staking returns should be reported and recorded.
More importantly, this adjustment is completed through on-chain governance: proposal 1053 received approximately 91.1% approval, with the new rules taking effect in the most recent epoch, and new minting set to 0, confirming that each OSMO destroyed would reduce the total supply accordingly. For regulators, these transparent rules for issuance, destruction, and distribution are no longer just economic narratives; they represent actionable behavior tracks that can be directly verified on-chain, becoming one of the important references for assessing the nature of tokens and the sources of their yields. Different jurisdictions already possess significant differences in the legal and tax treatment of staking returns and protocol income distribution, with some focusing more on whether yields originate from new issuances and others looking at whether they share protocol business outcomes. In the new stage of "no inflation + income-driven + destruction reducing supply," both the Osmosis project itself and actively participating stakers must reassess local regulatory interpretations of such yields, as this directly impacts how they will report every yield from OSMO on tax returns and compliance statements in the future.
The Monetary Policy Game with Other Public Chains
On the same track, many public chains still rely on high inflation to feed staking returns, treating daily new minting as a "budget," using continual dilution of old token holders to exchange for short-term Total Value Locked (TVL) and activity. Osmosis, on the other hand, chose to stop this "tap" at "0" through proposal 1053: based on approximately 91,324 newly minted OSMO used for staking rewards and other purposes daily, it set the new minting amount to 0 after the latest epoch, writing into on-chain governance the new rule of "rewards thereafter to be paid from protocol revenue." This is equivalent to opting out of the inflation war in an industry-wide game of "who will act as the inflation central bank," transitioning to a narrative of "tightening + dividends" based on income and destruction rather than continuing to print more tokens.
This path differentiation forms distinct images of two types of projects in the context of compliance and capital markets: one type primarily generates income from new issuances, suffers high inflation rates and unclear supply trajectories, and easily faces inquiries from institutions and audits asking, "How much more will you mint in the future?"; the other type, like Osmosis, writes new minting as 0 through on-chain governance and clearly ties staking rewards to protocol business revenue, with each OSMO destroyed directly reducing the total supply, sending a signal that "will not dilute infinitely." For institutional participants focused on supply caps, inflation rates, and sustainable yield sources, this transition from inflation-driven to income-driven models is more aligned with traditional capital markets' understanding of equity-like assets in terms of tax, accounting, and compliance disclosures, alleviating concerns over "unlimited inflation" and enabling on-chain governance to officially bear the function of "adjusting monetary policy." The outcome of this monetary policy game will determine which public chains can truly cross the compliance threshold and achieve deeper capital and institutional participation.
Uncertainty in Regulation and Yields Post-Inflation
After proposal 1053 took effect, Osmosis cleared the old rule of "approximately 91,324 OSMO minted daily," with stakers no longer relying on new tokens but only able to receive returns from protocol revenue. With each OSMO destroyed, the total supply correspondingly decreases, effectively rewriting the network from "expanding balance sheets for salaries" to "relying on operational income and repurchase destruction" as a capital discipline. For participants, staking is no longer a lockup for new issuance but a bet on whether the protocol can continuously generate adequate income and distribute it stably. On-chain governance then upgraded from discussing inflation parameters to discussing income ratios, destruction paces, and under what conditions shares are distributed. However, current public information has not disclosed the scale of protocol revenue, specific distribution mechanisms, or the yield rate range under the new rules, leaving stakers, project teams, and potential institutions facing greater uncertainty in tax, accounting treatment, and risk disclosure: whether income resembles "dividends" or "rewards" on paper and how future engagements will align with differing regulatory standards can only be speculated upon under incomplete information. It is foreseeable that Osmosis's "no inflation + income-driven + destruction reducing supply" model is still in its early experimental stage, and the community will likely continue to adjust parameters through governance surrounding yield levels, destruction ratios, and income distribution. Meanwhile, regulators and market participants will observe over a longer cycle—whether this new rule can yield a stable, auditable, and replicable path for returns in the absence of complete disclosures.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到[email protected]，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
