hodler

25 May 2026, 15:26

Iran warns talks could collapse as Trump ties deal to Abraham Accords

Iran is now saying the ceasefire negotiations with the United States may be headed for a full breakdown, and for good. Iran’s Foreign Ministry rejected claims that any draft deal includes Iranian nuclear promises or a handover of enriched uranium, calling those reports a “pure lie” and said Washington’s pressure on that point has made further talks almost useless. The ministry’s message was Iran is “not signing any agreement with the US” under those terms and added that “no one can claim we are close to reaching an agreement.” Iran denies uranium handover claims as officials say talks with Washington are close to failure Meanwhile, Tasnim also reported that Tehran is close to “cancelling” the talks completely. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei had used his Monday press conference to address the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil routes. He said Iran is not trying to charge ships a toll for passing through the strait. He also said Tehran does not collect tolls there now. Esmaeil said people should be careful with the words they use, because fees, service costs, and tolls do not mean the same thing. According to him, Iran and Oman are working on a system for safer shipping, and that some services may naturally cost money. He also tied part of that cost to environmental protection. As you likely know, the Strait of Hormuz sits between Iran and Oman, and Esmaeil said those two countries are the ones physically present there, not Britain or France. He added that scattered steps by other governments are making the situation harder, but regardless, they’re still working; a navigation system can be put in place quickly. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi also visited Oman for talks linked to the strait. Esmaeil said Iran knows the Strait is a global one, but Iran didn’t start this war. US and Israel did. Trump tells regional leaders to join the Abraham Accords as he links Iran talks to a wider deal Trump gave a very different message on Truth Social. He wrote that negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran are “proceeding nicely,” but said there will either be a “Great Deal” or no deal at all. He also warned that failure could mean a return to “the Battlefront and shooting, but bigger and stronger than ever before.” Trump said he spoke Saturday with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Qatar Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Qatar Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, and Qatari official Ali al-Thawadi. He also named Pakistan’s Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir Ahmed Shah, Türkiye President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Egypt President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, Jordan King Abdullah II, and Bahrain King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. After naming them, Trump said the countries should, at minimum, sign the Abraham Accords at the same time. The countries he listed were Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Pakistan, Türkiye, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain. The UAE and Bahrain are already part of the accords. Trump said one or two countries may have reasons not to join right away, but he argued that most should be ready to sign. He said that would make any settlement with Iran a much bigger regional event. He also listed current Abraham Accords members as the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and Kazakhstan. Trump said those countries have not paused or left the agreement, even during conflict and war. The most direct line came near the end of his post. Trump said he is “mandatorily requesting” that all countries sign the Abraham Accords immediately. He then said that if Iran signs its own agreement with him as US president, it would be an honor to have Tehran join the same coalition. Trump also said Saudi Arabia and Qatar should sign first, with others following after. He argued that countries refusing to join should not be part of the deal because that would show “bad intention.” He said he has asked his representatives to begin the process of bringing those countries into the accords. If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter .

25 May 2026, 05:08

Polkadot’s Issuance Reset: Can Cleaner DOT Tokenomics Revive Interest?

Polkadot is in the middle of a sweeping rethink of how its economy works. Community discussions and on-chain governance have centered on an “issuance reset” and cleaner tokenomics that could make DOT’s supply, staking rewards, and network funding more predictable. This matters because token design shapes everything from staking yields to builder incentives to market narratives. If Polkadot simplifies issuance and aligns incentives under Polkadot 2.0 and Agile Coretime, it could reset how investors and developers value DOT—without guarantees, and with real trade-offs. Below, we unpack what an issuance reset actually means, why it’s being considered now, how it may affect staking, parachains, and Treasury flows, and what signals to watch. This article is educational and not financial advice. Quick Answer A Polkadot “issuance reset” refers to recalibrating how new DOT enters circulation and where it goes (stakers, Treasury, network costs), with the goal of simpler, more predictable tokenomics aligned to Polkadot 2.0. If executed via OpenGov, it could steady inflation, make staking yields easier to understand, and better tie DOT demand to network usage, though outcomes depend on adoption and governance choices. Seeks clearer, possibly flatter issuance versus legacy variable dynamics. Reorients incentives for staking, Treasury, and parachain (now coretime) activity. Could reduce narrative friction and improve comparability with other L1s. Risks include lower headline yields, governance uncertainty, and market apathy. What does an issuance reset actually mean on Polkadot? In Polkadot’s context, issuance is the rate at which new DOT is minted and distributed. Historically, Polkadot’s design balanced inflation, staking rewards, and network funding in a dynamic way tied to participation targets. Over time, this became hard for average users to model and for builders to plan around. An “issuance reset” is not a hard fork or a promise of deflation. It is a governance-led recalibration that aims to simplify and clarify the rules for new DOT creation and distribution. In practice, that often means considering a steadier inflation policy and a more explicit split of issuance between staking, the Treasury, and any network maintenance buckets. The aim: fewer moving parts, less guesswork. Crucially, any reset would go through Polkadot’s on-chain governance (OpenGov), where proposals and referenda are debated and voted on. You can track active discussions and votes on platforms like Polkassembly ( https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/ ) and learn OpenGov mechanics via the Polkadot Wiki ( OpenGov docs ). The motivation is straightforward: simpler tokenomics are easier to communicate, compare, and evaluate. For a multichain network competing with streamlined narratives from Ethereum, Solana, and Cosmos, clarity is a feature. Why now? Polkadot 2.0 and Agile Coretime change the economics Polkadot 2.0, which centers on the Agile Coretime marketplace, replaces the old parachain slot auctions and crowdloans with a more flexible way for teams to acquire blockspace. That change alone alters the demand vectors for DOT and reshapes how value circulates between builders, validators, and the Treasury. Under auctions, large pools of DOT were bonded for long periods, indirectly affecting circulating supply and creating distinct incentives for contributors. Coretime aims to make blockspace a tradable commodity purchasable in shorter increments, which could smooth demand but also remove the old “headline” lock-ups that some market participants associated with supply absorption. Because the resource model has changed, it makes sense to revisit issuance and distribution. A reset could align DOT’s inflation with the new blockspace market, set clearer expectations for how staking rewards evolve as the staking ratio moves, and define predictable Treasury budgets to fund public goods and protocol development. For an overview of Polkadot 2.0 concepts and the Agile Coretime design, consult the Polkadot Wiki entries ( wiki.polkadot.network ), which summarize current architecture and link to technical materials. How might a reset shift supply and demand for DOT? Issuance is one side of the ledger. The other is demand: staking, fees, coretime purchases, and governance bonding. A cleaner policy could influence each of these in different ways. On the supply side, a flatter, more transparent inflation schedule may reduce uncertainty premiums for long-term holders. If the community decides to channel a defined share of new issuance into staking rewards and a defined share into the Treasury, future cash flows become easier to model. Predictability can help long-horizon allocators, though it can also surface trade-offs if headline yields compress. On the demand side, two levers stand out. First, Agile Coretime creates a direct avenue for teams to buy execution capacity, potentially increasing recurring DOT demand from builders if network usage grows. Second, the Treasury—funded by fees and potentially a portion of issuance—can deploy capital to stimulate ecosystems. Transparent rules for Treasury inflows and outflows matter because they shape whether DOT issuance finances durable public goods or becomes perceived sell pressure. None of this ensures price appreciation. Cleaner tokenomics can remove friction, but adoption, developer traction, and market cycles still dominate outcomes. The reset is best understood as “plumbing” that can support better narratives if utility follows. What does this mean for stakers, validators, and LST users? For stakers and validators, the key variable is how issuance splits and the network’s target staking ratio are expressed post-reset. If rewards become more predictable at a given staking participation level, operators can plan infrastructure and cash flow more confidently—but net yields could drift down or up depending on final parameters and the share of DOT staked. Liquid staking users (via protocols that issue staked DOT receipts) should also think in distributions, not absolutes. If the reset compresses gross yields, LST APYs may trend lower, even as the predictability of those yields improves. Conversely, if the staking ratio falls and issuance to staking is fixed, per-staker yields could rise—with higher volatility if participation swings. Validator operators should model two stress cases: lower-than-expected issuance to staking, and higher-than-expected operational costs. Nominators should assess counterparty risks for custodial staking and smart-contract risks for liquid staking. The Polkadot Wiki’s staking overview ( staking docs ) is a useful baseline for mechanics and slashing. Pro tip: In any issuance change, watch the network-wide staking ratio and validator set profitability. If participation spikes without a matching reward pool, individual yields can fall faster than headlines imply. Who benefits—and who might lose—from cleaner tokenomics? Clear rules tend to benefit planners. That includes developers budgeting coretime, foundations and DAOs proposing Treasury-funded initiatives, long-term validators, and institutions that need deterministic models. A predictable Treasury share can stabilize grant programs and infrastructure investments, supporting utility. However, there are trade-offs. If the reset results in fewer headline-grabbing lock-ups and lower nominal yields, momentum traders may lose an easy narrative. Liquid staking protocols could see tighter spreads if the market bids up LSTs closer to spot DOT as confidence in yield continuity grows, shaving off carry. And if the Treasury’s share is seen as too large or inefficiently deployed, the market could infer dilution with weak ROI. For parachain teams, moving from auctions to coretime is a double-edged sword: capital efficiency improves, but the implicit marketing boost of a crowdloan campaign fades. Teams must compete on product-market fit rather than token-driven bonding mechanics. Those with real user demand could thrive; those relying on token engineering may find it tougher. How does Polkadot compare with other L1 token models after a reset? Comparisons are nuanced, but it helps to situate Polkadot’s direction relative to peers. Below is a qualitative snapshot of design philosophies, not a scoreboard. Policies evolve; always confirm current details on official resources like the Polkadot Wiki, Ethereum docs, and Cosmos Hub governance pages. NetworkInflation policySecurity budget sourceFee burnBlockspace accessToken’s core rolesPolkadot (pre-reset)Dynamic issuance with staking-linked mechanicsNew issuance + feesNo native base-fee burnParachain slot auctions, long bondingStaking, governance, bonding for parachains, feesPolkadot (post-reset, conceptually)Cleaner, possibly flatter issuance with explicit splitsDefined issuance shares + fees + TreasuryNo base-fee burn; Treasury allocation may adjust flowsAgile Coretime marketplace (shorter-duration)Staking, governance, coretime, fees, Treasury fundingEthereumProgrammatic issuance to validatorsIssuance to stakers; base-fee burn offsetsYes (EIP-1559 base-fee burn)Permissionless execution; no auctionsGas, staking (via validators), DA bonding (ecosystem)Cosmos Hub (ATOM)Governance-tuned inflationInflation-driven staking rewards + feesNo base-fee burn by defaultApp-chain sovereignty; no shared auctionsStaking, governance, interchain security (optional) The headline: Polkadot appears to be converging on clearer, planner-friendly rules similar in spirit (but not identical) to peers that emphasize predictability. The distinguishing feature remains shared security and now a market for coretime, which, if it works as designed, makes DOT a native unit of compute access across a multi-core network. What should DOT holders and builders watch over the next quarters? Whether cleaner tokenomics revive interest depends on execution and usage. A practical watchlist helps you separate signal from noise. Governance outcomes: Track issuance-related referenda and their parameters on Polkassembly ( Polkadot OpenGov ). Staking ratio and yield trend: Monitor the percentage of DOT staked and realized APYs for validators and LSTs. Sharp changes can foreshadow re-pricing. Coretime demand: Are teams buying coretime consistently? Sustained usage implies recurring DOT demand from builders. Treasury health and deployment: Transparent, ROI-positive grants and infrastructure investments can turn issuance into ecosystem growth instead of sell pressure. Developer traction: Active repos, shipped features, and user-facing launches on parachains matter more than token headlines. Liquidity and custody: Exchange reserves, on-chain liquidity depth, and LST liquidity inform how quickly markets can move through new narratives. For macro context, keep an eye on broader risk appetite, rates, and crypto cycle dynamics. Cleaner tokenomics can help, but they won’t override global liquidity regimes. Scenario planning: best, base, and bear Any governance-led change invites scenario thinking rather than single-point predictions. Here’s a pragmatic framework to evaluate outcomes as data arrives. Best case: The reset lands with credible parameters, staking yields remain competitive, coretime demand ramps as more teams ship, and the Treasury funds visible public goods. Market participants reward the clarity, and DOT benefits from both narrative and usage tailwinds. Base case: The reset improves transparency but produces mixed incentives. Some yields compress, and the market waits for concrete adoption. DOT trades more in line with fundamentals; dispersion grows between productive parachains and weaker ones. Bear case: The reset is either delayed or perceived as poorly calibrated. Yields undershoot expectations, coretime demand is tepid, and Treasury deployment is questioned. The market discounts the reset as cosmetic, and attention migrates to faster-growing ecosystems. Whichever path emerges, a continuous feedback loop between governance, builders, and users will set the trajectory. The good news: on-chain governance lets parameters be iterated as evidence accumulates. Practical checklist before you make a move Before adjusting positions or roadmaps around an issuance reset, run through this quick diligence list: Read the actual referendum text and rationale; don’t trade off headlines. Model cash flows under multiple staking participation levels and issuance splits. Stress-test validator economics for fee variance and downtime risk. For LSTs, assess smart-contract audits, rehypothecation policies, and liquidity depth. For teams, estimate coretime costs across adoption scenarios and funding runway. Review Treasury reporting and grant processes; favor ecosystems with measurable ROI. Plan custody and tax implications for any changes in staking or liquidity usage. Common Mistakes Equating “reset” with deflation. A reset can still be inflationary. Read the parameters before assuming supply will shrink. Chasing APY screenshots. Headline yields can change quickly as participation moves. Look at net-of-fees, slashing-adjusted, and duration-adjusted returns. Ignoring governance timelines. Referenda, enactment delays, and implementation details can stretch across months. Position sizes accordingly. Overconcentrating in a single LST. Smart-contract risk, liquidity gaps, and oracle dependencies can compound. Diversify or use native staking if appropriate. Assuming Treasury spending equals sell pressure. Some grants fund infra that expands demand over time. Evaluate program quality, not just amounts. For builders, underestimating product-market fit. Without crowdloan marketing, coretime purchases must be justified by real usage. Budget with conservative adoption ramps. For ongoing coverage and practical explainers on Polkadot and broader Web3, visit Crypto Daily at cryptodaily.co.uk . Frequently Asked Questions Will an issuance reset burn existing DOT? There is no inherent burn in the concept of a reset. It is primarily about redefining how new issuance is calibrated and distributed. Any burn mechanic would need to be explicitly proposed, approved, and implemented through governance. Could DOT become deflationary after the reset? Deflation would require net token reductions (burns exceeding issuance). Polkadot does not have a default base-fee burn like Ethereum’s EIP-1559. While fee sinks or other mechanisms can be considered, treating deflation as a given would be speculative. How might staking yields change? It depends on the final issuance split and the network’s staking participation. If issuance to staking is fixed, higher participation can dilute per-staker yields; if participation is low, per-staker yields can rise. Monitor enacted parameters and the live staking ratio. What happens to parachain teams that relied on crowdloans? With Agile Coretime, teams acquire blockspace in a more flexible market. Legacy crowdloans followed their own timelines set by each project. For any remaining obligations or conversions, consult the parachain’s official channels and governance posts. Does the Treasury get more power under cleaner tokenomics? Cleaner rules can make Treasury inflows and outflows more transparent, not necessarily larger. The community decides the Treasury’s share and spending priorities through OpenGov. Outcomes hinge on proposal quality and accountability. Will Kusama test these changes first? Historically, Kusama has been used to trial upgrades before Polkadot. Many economic and governance changes debut there, but it’s not automatic. Check the relevant referenda on each network. How can I follow and participate in the reset process? Read proposals on Polkassembly ( Polkadot OpenGov ), review background on the Polkadot Wiki, and vote with your DOT using supported wallets and interfaces. Participation details and safety guidelines are outlined in the OpenGov documentation. Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.