LOVE9 economics

Label: PROPOSED for every number on this page, without exception — the current constitution engraves no number at all, not even the four zeros (see The only thing engraved permanently at the end). The numbers were drafted by the founding group and are voted on by the community; each period's genesis turns them into an opening record, not into permanent law. They are not commitments, not an offer, not investment advice. The cheapest door for changing a number here is before genesis — see Before you read.

LOVE9 is the native token of the 9Chain network — the project's public Layer 1. It is entirely separate from customer chains' fuel tokens, and is never a condition for a customer chain to operate.

The four zeros

No allocation for the team. No allocation for investment funds. No premine. No token sale to anyone.

These four once sat in the constitution as a permanently engraved clause, and earlier versions of this very document said exactly that. The current constitution reduces the engraved list to three memorial blocks and one rule, so the four zeros leave the engraved text: they are a verifiable fact of each period's genesis file — open it and you see no team allocation, no fund, no premine, no sale — and a proposal to keep them for every period after, which the community can change by vote like anything else.

That moves where trust rests, and the uncomfortable direction should be said outright: under this rule, a later community has the right to vote an allocation to some group. What stops it is no longer a line nobody can change — it is that it must win a public vote on chain, in front of everyone, and the record of that vote stays permanently. You are no longer invited to believe a promise; you are invited to read the genesis file of the running period, and to watch the single door every change must pass through.

The proposed parameters

What operating capital consists of, and why it does not contradict the four zeros. It is split across four wallets, and the ratios say more about intent than any pledge: nearly nine tenths is there to hand out to people who come to try the network, and to pay their fees for them; about one tenth is the founding validators' stake, forced into genesis; the remainder — barely over one percent — covers governance deposits and the faucet. None of those four wallets is an allocation to a person or an organisation.

And a rule that matters as much as the structure: this is an advance, not a grant. Unspent funds and stake released from bonding return to the endowment, and the advance itself is not deducted from the issuance base — meaning it takes nothing from anyone in advance. The check is the same as everywhere else on this page: open the running period's genesis file and count, do not trust the table.

Three near-equal parts

⚠️ LIBERTAS is a destination, not a description of the present. A network is only truly un-switch-off-able when its nodes run by several independent parties, on several independent infrastructures — that is the condition, and it is checkable from outside. Until it is met, this part pays for the work of getting there, not for a state already reached. Writing it the other way turns a goal into a false statement.

Figure 17 — One endowment, one formula, three parts splitting each day's flow, and two paths back to the endowment.

Why the three parts are near-equal rather than exactly equal: the release formula takes as its base the endowment's balance at genesis — total supply minus operating capital — rather than the total-supply constant. This was once settled the other way and then reversed, and the reason for reversing is worth more than the conclusion: when two of the project's own documents declared two different bases for the same formula, the honest fix was not to pick whichever was written more boldly, but to pick the base that matches the real money sitting in the endowment — so that the number engraved at genesis promises no coin without something real behind it. With a balance as the base, each part has an asymptotic ceiling of one third of that balance, and no day ever reaches it — because the endowment never empties. Each day's flow is still split into three exactly equal parts; what is only asymptotic is each part's cumulative total. Which base to use remains a design decision rather than an accounting detail — and, like every number here, the community can vote on it.

The three parts exist from genesis with a zero balance, and only hold funds once the distribution mechanism is built later. That sounds like bookkeeping, but it is a safety rule: each part's address is derived from its name, so outsiders can compute that address before the account exists — and an address that does not exist and is not on the blocked list means anyone who sends funds to it locks them forever. Creating the three empty wallets up front is the cheapest way to close that trap.

Released funds nobody has claimed stay as a buffer, and never raise any day's issuance ceiling. As a result nobody is owed anything, and nobody is promised a number with their name on it.

Left blank on purpose: how it is received

How a human being receives their share has not been designed. The proposed distribution says who receives — verified real human beings, one share each — with two constraints: it must be measurable on chain, and it must be settled by vote; the minimal constitution leaves even that to the community. What does not change is the order: the three parts have wallets from genesis but zero balances, and the endowment cannot open until a receiving mechanism has passed a vote — this blank is a structured blank, not an oversight.

A foundational document willing to leave that box empty, rather than fill it with a good-sounding mechanism, says more than the boxes already filled.

Three token layers, never to be confused

And one thing that is NOT among those three layers: community points. The project's community platform records contributions with a points system, not with the network's token. Points do not live on chain, cannot be staked, cannot vote, and whether points convert into anything at all is LEFT BLANK — nobody has decided. This is the easiest confusion in the whole document because the two things have similar names, so it is said once, plainly: anyone who guarantees you a conversion rate from points to tokens is putting words in the project's mouth — nobody has decided that.

The only thing engraved permanently: three blocks and one rule

The project's constitution — formally the LOVE Paper, initial version V0.0 — may be the shortest constitutional text in the industry: it keeps only three memorial blocks and one rule.

The three blocks: Block 1 engraves Genesis 1:1 in the original Hebrew — heaven and earth, before humankind. Block Adam — the first human: the first block whose time passes 09:09:09 Jerusalem time on 09/09/2026; it deliberately names no block number, because block numbers depend on network rhythm while time does not, and the date is a rule of the founding period rather than part of the constitutional text. The hour is anchored to Jerusalem rather than to a convenient time zone, because what is engraved in the first block is Genesis in the original Hebrew — the announced hour must be consistent with the thing engraved. A technical consequence worth remembering: because the moment is set in Jerusalem time, its universal time drifts with the seasons; anyone adding the offset by hand will be an hour out for half the year. Block Eva — the second human, and the first "we": the block immediately after Block Adam. That order is itself a sentence: first heaven and earth, then a human being, then we.

Why that text, and what the project does NOT claim. Block 1 engraves a sentence roughly three thousand years old, read by many different traditions — that is why it was chosen: not because the project follows any faith, but because a ledger meant to live for centuries needs a reference point older than every existing technology. It is engraved as an artefact with a date, the way one lays a foundation stone, not as a profession of belief.

Four things stated plainly, so nobody has to guess. 9Chain has no religion, represents no religion, and neither favours nor excludes anyone for their beliefs. No rule of the network derives from the content of those three blocks — they are referenced by no consensus, issuance or governance mechanism; remove their content and every formula in this document still runs unchanged. The names Adam and Eva are used here to mean the first human and the second human, the point where a ledger turns from I into we; anyone reading another meaning into them will get no argument from this document, only a statement of the meaning it uses. And the project's name borrows from no faith — the reasoning behind the number nine is in Conclusion, and it is a way of checking ledgers, not a sacred symbol.

One further consequence must be stated in full, because it touches operators rather than readers: the engraving is immutable, so anyone running a node of this network holds and re-serves that content. In some jurisdictions, storing and distributing religious content is separately regulated — and engraved text cannot be taken down. Operators in those places should check their own obligations before running a node. The project states this constraint rather than leaving others to discover it later.

One rule, and it is the entire remainder of the constitution: everything else about 9Chain — every number, every rule, every share — belongs to the whole community to decide together, for as long as the network lives.

These three blocks are engraved again in every period, and under the four-period rule only the mainnet engraving is permanent — the testnet ones are rehearsals.

The constitution's content is frozen by a hash published before engraving, so anyone can hash it again and reconcile the on-chain text with the published one.

A consequence few anticipate, and it cuts both ways. Because engraved text is immutable, changing a sentence in the constitution does not change what was already engraved. The version on a period's chain is always the version as of that period's birth; new wording only reaches the chain at the next rebuild. So when text and engraving differ, the correct reading is: the text says what the project intends to engrave, the engraving says what the project has engraved. That gap is not itself a fault — it is the price of immutability, and one more reason only the engraving on the official network is final. To find out whether the two differ, do not ask: read the on-chain text and hash it again.

In short: this constitution engraves no number — not even a zero. What is permanently engraved is three memorial blocks and one rule: everything else is decided by the community together. Any document calling one of the project's numbers unchangeable forever — including this one, in versions anchored earlier — misstates the current constitution.