The NULL token
What the token does, and what it does not.
The protocol runs on shared reserves. Someone has to supply them, someone has to set the rules, and someone has to stand behind those rules. That's what the token is for. It isn't the money you spend.
What it does
Tokenomics
The fee has one job: it deepens the reserves.
| Parameter | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Supply | 1,000,000,000 | Fixed at launch. |
| Swap fee | 1% | Taken on every swap. |
| Fee destination | Null Reserves | Every fee goes into the reserves, deepening the pool that spending draws on. |
| Chain | Robinhood Chain | The protocol itself is not tied to one chain. |
Why the fee funds the reserves
The fee is the only ongoing flow in the design, and it goes to the one thing the protocol cannot work without. A reserve nobody has funded cannot be spent from, however good the cryptography is. Routing the fee into reserves means the protocol's own activity pays for the capacity that activity depends on.
- Capacity. Deeper reserves support larger spending rights, and more of them running at the same time, without the reserve being stretched thin.
- Privacy. Depth is what makes a payment unremarkable. The more that moves through a reserve, the less any single spend stands out in it.
- It funds itself. Capacity grows with use rather than depending on an outside subsidy that can be withdrawn, so the reserve scales with the demand placed on it.
What it isn't
It isn't what you spend. Spending draws on reserve assets under a spending right. You don't need to hold the token to be granted one. You can use NULL without ever touching it.
It isn't a claim on reserve assets. Supplying a reserve and holding governance weight are two different relationships with the protocol. Mixing them up would put back exactly the attributable-position problem the whole design exists to avoid.
Governance is the part that matters
Of the four things above, governance is the one that decides what the protocol actually does. Reserve policy sets what can be spent and under what conditions, and whoever can change policy can change how the protocol behaves for everyone using it.
If you're seriously evaluating this, token distribution and the governance process matter more than the cryptography. A sound proof system under captured governance is still not a safe system.
Not decided yet. Distribution. How you get governance weight and how you use it. Quorum and timelock. Whether staking backs specific guarantees and what's at risk if they're broken. How depositor rewards are funded. Everything above describes what the token is for. None of it describes the mechanics, and you'll need those before you can judge any of it.