• MultiversX proposes removing the EGLD supply cap while introducing tail inflation and revised fee incentives.
• The move breaks long-standing scarcity promises, sparking debate over trust and dilution risks.
• Foundation argues new tokenomics could drive growth, liquidity, and long-term network sustainability.

MultiversX — EGLD, has sparked a heated debate across the crypto community. A new governance proposal challenges the project’s original scarcity promise. Longtime supporters now question core assumptions around value and trust. The plan introduces tail inflation and removes the EGLD supply cap. These changes mark a sharp break from earlier messaging. Many investors did not expect such a pivot. The reaction has been swift, emotional, and deeply divided across the ecosystem.

Nobody is talking about increase in supply. Ethereum has been discussing about economics changes constantly.

A few problems we have right now: even when the blocks are full, the fees are not enough to cover the inflation.

First and foremost we want to change that.

— Robert Sasu | dev/acc (@SasuRobert) February 6, 2025

A Sharp Break From Scarcity Promises

The MultiversX Foundation recently unveiled a governance proposal at “The Foundry” event on October 3. Robert Sasu, a core foundation developer, presented the framework. The proposal outlines major economic changes for EGLD. The most controversial move involves removing the long-standing supply cap. For years, MultiversX promoted a Bitcoin-style scarcity narrative. Official documentation referenced a hard cap near 31.4 million EGLD.

Marketing materials reinforced this message repeatedly. The official EGLD landing page still claims a fixed maximum supply today. This proposal directly contradicts those public assurances. Community members quickly flagged the inconsistency. Critics argue that trust erodes when core promises shift. Supporters counter that adaptability matters more than rigid ideology. The proposal introduces a 9.47% annual tail inflation rate. Validators would also burn 10% of collected fees.

The foundation believes this structure could support sustainable growth. The plan aims to boost liquidity and align long-term incentives. Justin Bons, founder of CyberCapital, publicly criticized the model. He described the inflation rate as excessive. He also argued that the burn mechanism lacks sufficient impact. Other participants dismissed his critique during a Foundation-hosted Spaces discussion.

Can New Tokenomics Drive Growth or Dilution?

The foundation acknowledges ongoing struggles across adoption and market relevance. Representatives framed the proposal as a necessary reset. The broader strategy includes expanding operations within the United States. Leadership sees regulatory clarity as a long-term advantage. Supporters argue that inflation could reward active network participants. Builders would receive 90% of generated fees. This structure could encourage development and experimentation.

Remaining fees would face burning or reinvestment. The foundation believes network usage could offset inflation. Higher activity could increase burned fees. That dynamic could support reflexive value accrual. Growth would feed revenue, which could strengthen the ecosystem. Skeptics remain unconvinced. Inflation above industry norms raises serious concerns. Long-term holders could face steady dilution. Validators and contract owners might sell rewards to cover costs. That selling pressure could weigh on price performance.

Market data already shows weakness. EGLD trades near $14.25 at the time of writing. The token has dropped over 41% year over year. Market capitalization stands near $408 million. Ranking has slipped to around 147th place. The proposal seeks competitiveness through flexibility. Critics see a departure from founding principles. Supporters see realism replacing idealism.