@takahser thanks for the close reading, and the points raised. I'll address them shortly.

I have a couple of questions regarding the delivery:

Thanks again for the careful review. I'll respond inline below. Nonetheless, a general point recurs, so I'll address that and refer here as required.
This is, to my knowledge, the first attempt to use an existing analytic framework to review the Polkadot ecosystem token designs.
Consequently, it is closest to a scoping review. On inspection, the Polkadot ecosystem was innocent of any of these ideas. Naturally, while accurate, a statement to that effect is unsatisfactory. So I expanded the scope to at least point to those topics and features I had expected to already be well developed. Obviously, this led to a problem - the original proposal for a creative synthesis was rejected in favor of a scoping review, with a reduction in the time the reviewers requested. The current submission is something of a compromise. Hopefully, this moves the ball forward.

• Is there a specific reason that most of the figures don't contain information about their contents (see flowcharts in chapter 2)?

I've clarified:

• The terms "token" and "coin" are not clear defined. Sometimes they seem to be used interchangably, while in other cases they're appear to represent different concepts.

I've added this:

Example:
> The same classification can also be applied when using tokens instead of native coins.

I've removed the above.

• Since this paper is concerned with "Token Economics" it'd be good if there was a definition for the term "Token Economy". I find some sections hard to understand without a clear definition, ...

See the excerpt provided above.

... for example, do you here refer to a single parachain or the Polkadot ecosystem as a whole or something else:
> A token economy can be classified as open if it allows unrestricted staking and rewarding using the native coin (NC) of other token economies, as well as accepting the native coins of other token economies as a means of payment for transaction fees.

I've clarified:

• The whole chapter "2.1 Economy Type" is hard to understand. For example, given the quote in the previous point, which blockchain (or different component) is meant for the "payment for transaction fees"? Is it the main chain of such a token economy, such as the Polkadot ecosystem? Or do you refer to a single parachain?

I've added:

• what notation did you use for step 2 in the flowchart in Figure 1:

  (rational expectations NEAR/2 equilibrium) OR (no PRE/2 arbitrage OR arbitrage PRE/2 free) AND ((block NEAR/2 chain) AND ((token NEAR/2 economics) OR (tokenomics)))

Consider this pseudo code. I make no claims about it.

• Can you clearify which polkadot parachain tokens have been reviewed?

  None of the reviewed Polkadot parachain tokens/coins were designed using a rational expectations framework (with the possible exception of the Equilibrium parachain), and none derive an expression for their token price dynamics.

I've added:

• What's the reason you're using the term "parallel-chain" rather than "parachain" in some occasions?

I've adopted parachain throughout.

• I suggest you format numbered lists in a way that makes it easier to read. For example, this excerpt is rather hard to read (p11):
  

• What does stylized mean in the context of token price dynamics or partial equilibrium?

  No Polkadot parachain identifies an expression for stylized token price dynamics.
  The authors consider a stylized partial equilibrium model of using redeemable tokens in place of using fiat currency.

I added:

• In 2.2 Model Type, what kind of variables are you referring to? Maybe an example would help me understand it.

• What's the reason you included only Equilibrium into Table 1? While I acknowledge the following quote, I'm not clear on why you wouldn't be able to evaluate other attributes, namely Economy, Model, Sector, Production, Monetary:

  None of the reviewed Polkadot parachain tokens/coins were designed with an explicit equilibrium objective, nor using a rational expectations framework (with the possible exception of the Equilibrium parachain

None of the white papers address those issues. In fact, there is no reason to believe they are aware of them, compared to footnote b in Table 1 - where there was something substantive to work with/from. What you suggest would be a table with None in every cell. Like the last two columns of Table 1.
It is for this very reason that I searched for something that would fit the Polkadot ecosystem, and arrived at Table 3.

If there are to be further iterations, can I ask that issues be opened in the project repository and linked to here?

@taqtiqa-mark thanks for the rapid progress on this. I went through your comment and I think it's mostly clarified. I'm still having a closer look and I'm going to create issues, as demanded if I should have any follow-up questions/unclarities.

@taqtiqa-mark are you sure you've pushed the changes? I didn't find any of the new text sections you've provided screenshots for in your most recent comment.

Regarding this:

For simplicity, I think it'd be easier to stick to 1 of the terms. However, it's not a deal breaker and I'm fine with the explanation you provide here.

Apart from that, I've created this issue. At this time I have nothing else to add, but I'll go over the new version of the paper one more time as soon as it's pushed to your repo.

@taqtiqa-mark are you sure you've pushed the changes? I didn't find any of the new text sections you've provided screenshots for in your most recent comment.

I believe so:

https://github.com/taqtiqa-mark/tokenomics-survey-2022/blob/main/milestones/milestone_3.pdf

Apart from that, I've created this issue. At this time I have nothing else to add, but I'll go over the new version of the paper one more time as soon as it's pushed to your repo.

Thanks, I'll request a review once I've updated and pushed the new version.

I believe I've addressed all comments and requested changes.

I've proposed the Dockerfile references be removed:

w3f/Grants-Program#1877

I'll update here when I upload the paper.

@takahser, appreciate your thoughts on the idea of delaying publishing the paper until the second Sockin & Xiong paper transitions from "forthcoming".

This would mean the milestone-3 blocks until then - hopefully that wouldn't mean you get spammed with reminders or some such follow-up.

Several reasons for this:

1. Not being available from the publisher means
   a. There maybe referee feedback that is missed. Unlikely, but still possible.
   b. Readers are left to ferret out any of the drafts they can, this goes back at least 3 years. These drafts have evolved.
2. The original proposal expressly limited its scope to published articles, partly for the above reasons.

I can still draw down the milestone 1 and 2 payments when my accountant sets things up - he is dealing with some issues so this may take a while.

Hope that sounds acceptable?

@taqtiqa-mark does this imply that you can't publish the paper because the referenced Sockin & Xiong paper paper's status is still forthcoming? Personally,I wouldn't mind its publication even with a citation of an impending paper. This could be broadly acceptable, considering that it's a fast-moving field where compromises are sometimes made to accelerate time to market (or journal, in this case). But I'll leave it to you to decide, given your evident expertise in academia.

@taqtiqa-mark does this imply that you can't publish the paper because the referenced Sockin & Xiong paper paper's status is still forthcoming?

Maybe publish as "Draft: Comments welcome"?

@taqtiqa-mark feel free to ping me once this is fixed. I'll take a look at it next Wednesday as I'm going to be ooo until then.

@taqtiqa-mark any update?

Sure, I'm still coming up with a way to address the objections of @jonasW3F and also stay within the guidelines. I have a draft but still not fully happy with it.

Also, full disclosure, I've reached out to the paper authors and some are away until from their desks until September. I'll leave up to you if you want to wait on their responses.

@taqtiqa-mark thanks for the reply. Once you're happy with it, feel free to ping me again so I can have another look. I just wanted to check whether it's being dealt with. 👍

@takahser, appreciate your patience. I've resolved the outstanding issues, given the constraints of the agreed scope, budget, and W3F guidelines.

@taqtiqa-mark thanks for the update. I checked the links but I didn't find the paper. Does it mean you submitted them but they're not online yet (also no pre-print, for example)?

I checked the links but I didn't find the paper.

Not clear what you are referring to, when I follow this link:

I see the updated article:

Yes that is the penultimate step. I just need you to confirm you are happy with how I've closed out the issues raised by jonasw3, and that there are no other issues.

With that confirmation I'll

• post the papers,
• add the links to the PR, and
• ask for this PR be merged.

@taqtiqa-mark got it. Yes, it's fine by me. Once you can show me the proof that you've submitted the paper, I'll approve this milestone.

SSRN has a review process:

As does IDEAS, via MPRA for non-academics

How about the Arxiv submission

I need an endorsement from someone in the Quantitative Finance area. All my endorsers are in the stats domains. Could take another day or two... unless you know of someone I can email the endorsement link/code to?

@taqtiqa-mark ok no problem, lmk once you've received the endorsement. I'm not aware myself of anybody who can endorse you.

@takahser , still no movement on the arxiv front - seems quiet a isolated/insular ecosystem. Anyway, I suggest replacing Arxiv with ResearchGate, where I already have a presence.

If you agree I'll amend the application, then update here when done?

@taqtiqa-mark yes, feel free to amend it.

@takahser , please see ResearchGate.

We noticed that this is the last milestone of your project. Congratulations on completing your grant! 🎊

So, where to from here? First of all, you should join our Grants Community chat, if you haven't already, so we can stay in touch.
If you are looking for continuative support for your project, there are quite a few options. The main goal of the W3F grants program is to support research as well as early-stage technical projects. If your project still falls under one of those categories, you might want to apply for a follow-up grant. However, depending on your goals and project status, there are other support programs in our ecosystem that might be better suited as the next step. For example, projects with a Business Case/Token should look into the Substrate Builders Program or VC Funding. Common Good projects have a good chance of receiving Treasury Funding.

For a more comprehensive list, see our Alternative Funding page. Let us know if you have any questions regarding the above. We are more than happy to point you to additional resources and help you determine the best course of action.
Lastly, we hope your W3F grant was a success and we want to thank you for being part of the journey!

@takahser thanks for your patience, appreciate your timely responses and thoughtful comments.

@taqtiqa-mark thanks for your efforts as well. You can find the final, approved evaluation here.
By the way, I was going to forward your invoice, but I haven't found it. I think you haven't uploaded it yet, is that correct? When are you planning to upload it?

When are you planning to upload it?

Thanks, my accountant is dealing with some personal circumstances, so the legal entities haven't been setup yet. Sorry I can't be more concrete - hope you understand.

@taqtiqa-mark no problem, just upload the invoice and ping me here once you've sorted out the issues. 👍