Many people think that the problem with DePIN lies in "insufficient computing power,"

But the more I look at it, the more I believe that what is truly fragile is actually the fixed issuance model.

When you use fixed emissions to subsidize GPU supply, essentially you are betting on "demand in the future."

Once demand doesn't keep up, the system can only continue to emit tokens,
and the result is:

Supply keeps increasing, but actual usage keeps decreasing,

The network appears to be operating, but it is actually self-consuming.

This is also why many DePIN projects work very hard but don't last long.
@ionet's IDE, in essence, is not about "parameter tweaking,"

But a demand-driven restructuring, with a very clear goal:

Make the computing network first responsible for real income, not for narratives.

The way IDE (expected to launch in Q2 2026) addresses the problem is quite restrained:

• Sustainability Ratio:

Real-time comparison of actual income vs. target expenditure,

If income is insufficient, no forced emissions.

• Dual Vault Buffer Mechanism:
Instead of cutting supply outright, use counter-cyclical buffering to smooth out fluctuations.

• Income priority is very clear:

After ensuring network operation, at least 50% of remaining income is used for $IO buyback / burn,

Not to pump the price, but to curb long-term inflation.

• What to do about short-term gaps?

Through temporary Vault releases,

Stabilize the revenue of USD-denominated suppliers and prevent computing nodes from being forced to exit.

In simple terms, IDE is not about "feeding" GPUs,

But about making GPUs truly used.

When emissions, income, and computing demand are tied to the same logic,

Decentralized computing power finally gains long-term survival capability,

Not relying on faith to keep it alive.